Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.55 seconds)C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar vs C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar And Another on 14 October, 1953
13. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnuachala Mudaliar v. Muruganatha Mudaliar , the question whether a property given by a Hindu, by way of gift or will, to his son, is self-acquired property or ancestral property in his hands, is primarily one of the intention of the donor or the testator to be gathered from the terms of the deed of gift or will. It there are no clear words describing the kind of interest intended to be given, the court would have to collect the intention from the language of the document taken along with the surrounding circumstances. In the present case, the gift deed did not at all mention that it was being executed for the benefit of the family of the donee. Rather, Gurprit Singh was made the absolute owner. The surrounding circumstances also altogether negative the intention that the gift was intended for his family, as there was no his family at all in existence. Gurprit Singh was an unmarried boy and was married severally years later. His conduct for a number of years in declaring the income as belonging to him individually next showed that he was treating them as belonging to him individually. After all the gifts could not have been made to a non-existent entity of Gurprit Singh's so-called HUF.
Kalyanji Vithaldas vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 November, 1936
32. Reference has also been made to the conduct of Gurprit Singh himself in accepting the gift and also in showing it as his individual property in the returns filed by him between 1956 and 1961. So far as the question of acceptance is concerned, this is not of much consequence because the intention of the parties was that Arjun Singh should cease to have any interest in the property and that it should thereafter belong to Gurprit Singh who had, therefore, no objection to the purported gift made by Arjun Singh. So far as the second aspect is concerned, again no fault can be found with Arjun Singh because even a joint family property received by him was assessable in his hands only in the capacity of individual as he was the sole coparcener in his branch of the joint family. This was the position prevailing at the relevant time in view of the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Kalyanji Vithaldas v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 90 (See, however, the criticism of this view in Kanga, 7th Edn., Vol. 1p. 62).
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A.P. Swamy Gomedalli on 30 April, 1937
This would also appear to be the position after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Lal Chhabda [1975] 10 ITR 776 and by the Privy Council in CIt v. Swamy Gomedalli [1937] 5 ITR 416. Therefore, it was quite proper and correct for Gurprit Singh to have shown the income from the property in his individual returns till 1961, when a son was borne to him, it is clear from the statement of the case as well as the order of the Tribunal that as soon an a son was borne to him, Gurprit Singh claimed, in his assessment for 1962-63 and 1963-64, and this forms the subject-matter of the present reference. There is, therefore, nothing in the conduct made by him if it is based on evidence.
Commissioner Of Gift-Tax vs Tej Nath on 9 November, 1971
44. As it happens, the gift of Rs. 50,000 by cash was made by Arjun Singh to the present assessed in December, 1954, and the property at Aurangzeb Road, was gifted on January 11, 1956. By that time, Arjun Singh had not been assessed in the status of a HUF. So, there could be some doubt whether this property came to Gurprit Singh as the self-acquired property of the father or as the gift from the HUF. When it was settled by the AAC's order that Arjun Singh was holding this property as karta of the HUF, it would naturally follow that the property was part of the property of a joint Hindu Family which had been gifted to Gurprit Singh. It was not open to the Tribunal to take a different view, and. Therefore, by its order dated December 23, 1966, the Tribunal accepted the property in question to be apart of the assets of the joint Hindu family, of which Arjun Singh was the karta and of which Gurprit Singh was a member. There is considerable doubt whether the karta of a HUF can immovable property, and in some cases it has been held that such gift is void, but, in some other cases, it has been held that such a gift is voidable. A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held in CIT v. Tej Nath [1972] 86 ITR 96, that a gift by the karta of a HUF was void and not merely voidable. It was held that it was void whether made to a coparcener or a stranger.
S. Raghbir Singh Sandhawalia vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 September, 1957
But in the judgment a number of other cases have been referred to including another judgment of the Punjab High Court, S. Raghbir Singh Sandhawalia v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 719, in which the gift was made, in the presence of the other coparceners and therefore, according to the Full Bench, it was valid having been assented to by the other members. It would appear that the present gift would also be valid because Arjun Singh made the gift to his only other coparcener, Gurprit Singh, and, therefore, there was an assent. In any case, whichever view is taken, it would follow that the property was a HUF property in the hands of Arjun Singh and, therefore, continued to be a HUF property in the hands of his son, Gurprit Singh. Whether, the property came to Gurprit Singh under a void gift or a voidable gift makes not the slightest difference because the question posed is whether this property can be assessed in the hands of the assessed as an individual.
Valliammai Achi vs Nagappa Chettiar & Ors on 23 January, 1967
There are other cases dealing with similar points, for instance, Valliammai Achi v. Nagappa Chettiar, , wherein a father disposed of the entire joint Hindu family property by a will and gave only a portion to his son, Pallaniappa, who adopted one Nagappa Chettiar. It was held by the Supreme Courts that once it was established that the property was joint HUF property, it must be held that the characteristics of the property could not be changed by the father by making a will and the grandson acquired an interest by adoption in the said property, which remained joint family property. The Supreme Court observed as follows (at p, 1156) :
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bihar And ... vs S. P. Jain on 19 September, 1972
19. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case CIT v. S. P. Jain [1973] 87 ITR 370, although the High Courts and the Supreme Court are reluctant to interfere with the findings of fact, this should not justify the acceptance of any ipse dixit irrespective of whether there be any material on record or not.
1