Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing M.K. Stremann, Madras vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 30 August, 1960

Damodar Krishnaji Nirgude vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 30 October, 1961

5. Mr. J.P. Pandit contends that the Tribunal was in error in holding that as a result of the deed of 29th November, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the partition deed), there had been an indirect transfer of property in favour of the assessee's wife and minor child. According to him neither in impressing his self-acquired property with the character of ancestral property not in partitioning that property any transfer direct or indirect within the meaning of sub-section (3) of section 16 of the Act is involved. He referred to us the decisions in Kisansing Mohansing Balwar v. Vishnu Balkrishna Joglekar; Duggirala Sadasiva Vittal v. Bolla Rattain and M.K. Stremann v. Commissioner of Income-tax. On the other hand, Mr. Joshi contends that on a true construction of the deed of partition, it will be clear that the assessee had transferred certain properties to his wife and minor son not by the deed of partition but on 18th October, 1952, obviously with a view to avoid payment of tax on the income thereof. But by this mode of transferring his property to his wife and minor son the assessee did not succeed and to achieve this very object the assessee has adopted this mode of purporting to throw the property into the hotchpot and effecting a partition thereafter. In the context of these facts, it is nothing but an indirect transfer of certain property to his wife and minor son. In the alternative, Mr. Joshi contends that admittedly there was no ancestral property belonging to the Hindu undivided family. A coparcener cannot impress his self-acquired property with the character of a coparcenary property unless there is some other ancestral property belonging to the family. If there is no such property, there is nothing with which the self-acquired property could be blended and, therefore, it is not open to the coparcener to impress his self-acquired property with the character of joint family property if the joint family possessed no joint family property. In the second alternative, Mr. Joshi contends that at any rate there had been no time lag between the assessee's impressing his self-acquried property with the character of the joint family property and the partition effected. Both have been done by one and the same instrument and that being the position it is nothing but an indirect transfer of his property to his wife and minor son.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

G. Krishna Rao And Ors. vs The First Additional Gift Tax Officer, ... on 26 February, 1968

18-A. It is in the context of the aforesaid legal position that the conversion often self-acquired property into joint family property has to be viewed. It cannot be said that in such a process transfer of right is not involved. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the Madras High Court in M. K. Stremann v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, , that there is no element of transfer in the merging of the self-acquired property with the joint family property.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 45 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M. P. K. Kandasami Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 26 April, 1967

The Bombay High Court, following other earlier decisions, including M. K. Stremann v. Commissioner of Income-tax above cited, held that it was open to a member of a Hindu undivided family to throw his self-acquired property into the family hotchpotch, even though there was no joint or ancestral property and that such throwing of his self-acquired property into the hotchpotch of the family did not amount to any transfer of such property to the assessees wife or son, and the partition of the property in such circumstances did not amount to a transfer by the assessee of his property to his wife and child.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Gift-Tax, Andhra ... vs C. Satyanarayana Murthi on 7 March, 1964

(14) Shri Kondiah, learned counsel for the department, invites us to hold that those observations did not represent sound law and they are in fact opposed to the principle enunciated in a later Madras case and also a decision by the Gujarat High Court, as well as a ruling of the Bombay High Court. We think the subsequent Madras decision and that of the Bombay High Court do not render any assistance in this case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Smt. Cherukuri Eswaramma vs Controller Of Estate Duty. on 28 June, 1967

In arriving at this conclusion, reliance was placed on the observations of Subba Rao j. (as he then was) in Radhakristnayya v. Sarasamma and of the decision of Punjab High Court in Jagan Nath v. State of Punjab and the Madras High Court in M. K. Stremann v. Commission of Income-tax (which was subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. K. Stremann).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next