Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.17 seconds)Income-Tax Officer vs K. Jayaraman on 17 November, 1986
7. In this case, the learned departmental representative
submitted that there was no legal necessity for transfer of HUF property.
The learned Representative further pointed out that there was no
evidence to show that the income from property was actually passed on
to co-owners. Therefore, according to the learned representative, the
entire profit arising out of the transfer of the land has to be assessed
only in the hands of the assessee. Since the assessee has not produced
any evidence for development of the land; the assessing officer has
rightly disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee on the so
called development. Since the co owners agreement is not acted upon
and the assessee has not produced any evidence for development of the
property, the assessing officer has rightly computed the capital gain
which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The learned DR placed reliance on
the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of ITO Vs. K.
Jayaram (1986) (Mad. HC) (168 ITR 757) and submitted the assessing
officer can go into the question of validity and genuineness of the
documents produced before him.
1