Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.68 seconds)
Bhagirathi Saha vs Gift-Tax Officer And Another. on 29 January, 1971 cites

Commissioner Of Gift-Tax vs C. Satyanarayanamurthy. on 27 March, 1964

In a reply dated 28th of October, 1968 (annexure "F"), the petitioner denied his liability. By annexure "G" dated October 29, 1968, the revenue relied upon Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Gift-tax v. Satyanarayanamurthy, in support of its conclusion that the separate property so thrown into the hotchpot was a gift. This writ application has been filed for quashing the impugned notices and orders by annexures, "A", "C", "D" and "F", and for issuing a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties not to proceed with the assessment of the petitioner under the Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Goli Eswariah vs Commissioner Of Glft Tax, Andhra ... on 5 May, 1970

At one point of time, there was sharp cleavage of opinion èamongst the various High Courts as to whether a separate or self-acquired property thrown into the common hotchpot would constitute a gift. The matter is now concluded by Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift-tax. In that case their Lordships observed that the separate property of a Hindu coparcener acquires the characteristic of a joint family property not by any physical mixing with his joint his joint family or ancestral property but by his own volition and intention by his waiving and surrendering his separate rights in it as separate property. The act is a unilateral act. The moment he declares his intention the property assumes the character of joint family property and this doctrine is peculiar to the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. When a coparcener throws his separate property into the common stock he makes no gift under the Transfer of Property Act. There is no donor or donee and no question of acceptance of property thrown into the common stock arises. The declaration by which the assessee impressed the separate property with the character of joint Hindu family property does not constitute a transfer so as to attract the provisions of the Act. The word disposition used in the main part of section 2(xxiv) refers to a bilateral or a multilateral act. It does not refer to a unilateral act of throwing self-acquired property into the common hotchpot.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 59 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat on 28 April, 1961

In a reply dated 28th of October, 1968 (annexure "F"), the petitioner denied his liability. By annexure "G" dated October 29, 1968, the revenue relied upon Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Gift-tax v. Satyanarayanamurthy, in support of its conclusion that the separate property so thrown into the hotchpot was a gift. This writ application has been filed for quashing the impugned notices and orders by annexures, "A", "C", "D" and "F", and for issuing a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties not to proceed with the assessment of the petitioner under the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1