HUF / H!ndu Undivided Family - A thread

HUF or H!ndu undivided family is a special provision under the income tax act which allows H!ndu families to enjoy lesser payable income tax as compared to any other individual.


It also encompasses Buddhist, Ja!n & Sikh families.

HUF Essentially allows a Joint or any family 4 that matter 2 be treated as an individual & the family’s income 4m inherited property, wills and gifts 2 be taxed separately rather than being clubbed with individual’s income.
Essentially they can divide their income in two parts.

What does that mean? In essence, It means that it allows the individuals to reduce the payable income tax, as they do not have to consider income from HUF when calculating “their own” taxable income.

The income from inherited property,wills, gifts is accounted under HUF (with a separate PAN card) and since it is not summed with individual’s income, it warrants a lower payable tax.

What’s interesting is that, HUF is based on H!ndu law, which does not govern other families allowed to avail benefits of HUF, i.e Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains.

Now here is how the majority has been getting away with paying more tax, thus essentially qualifying to be called “free-loaders” protected by the Indian Law .

According to Income tax department: For the year 2018-19, the total HUF payable tax was Rs. 4,612 Crores, for a gross HUF Income of Rs. 50,893 Crores. Had this gross HUF income been part of individual income, the payable tax for each individual would have been MUCH MORE.
Which means that if HUF didn’t exist, these people would end up paying more tax and generating more tax revenue for the government and country.

HUF is deeply rooted in appeasement of H!ndu sentiments while placing the interest of country and it’s revenue at the back seat.

It’s high time people realize that the only appeased and free-loading community in India that benefits the most is majority, which constantly tries to rub “so called Hajj subsidy” in the face of Musl!ms day in day out.

In fact, “so called Hajj subsidy” was cancelled in 2018, with Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi quoting “it’s part of our policy to empower minorities with dignity and without appeasement”.

The fact is that the so called Hajj subsidy was in fact a skullduggery to protect Air India Monopoly.

Wonder when BJP would want to empower the majority with some dignity and prompt them to shell out more tax as the country rightly deserves. Since H!ndu appeasement now is anyway based on change of city names and dem0nization of Musl!ms, it shouldn’t be a big task.


More from Politics

So let's see a show of hands: how many of you even knew Huber was digging into the Clinton Foundation? While he was assisting Horowitz in his digging into the FISC/Steele Dossier/Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie/DNC/Hillary campaign stuff?

I'm sure Huber is coming to DC *only* to discuss Clinton Foundation things with Meadows and his committee.

He for certain, like, won't be huddling with Horowitz or that new guy, Whitaker while he's in town. That would NEVER HAPPEN. [wink wink wink!] 😉

I just spent a year and a half telling you they will SHOW YOU what they are REALLY DOING when they are READY.

Not before.

No matter how much whining is done about it.

I'm exhausted but it's worth it.

Now you know why they're f**king TERRIFIED of Whitaker, the closer tapped by Trump to come in late for the hysterical fireworks that will ensue soon.

Look who's suddenly fund raising for his legal defen- er, I mean, ha ha - his reelection campaign!
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/

First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/

Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/

Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/

Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/

You May Also Like