Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Section 4 in The Gift-Tax Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Gift-Tax Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Gift-Tax Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
M.K. Stremann, Madras vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 30 August, 1960
(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.
The Gift-Tax Act, 1958
A. Natesan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 11 December, 1962
(15) The Madras decision, Natesan v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras, (1963) 49 ITR 941 (Mad) had to determine whether a division of assets exclusively belonging to the karta of the family, between himself and his minor sons and wife, would be governed by Section 16 (3) (a) (iv) of the Income-tax Act or not. It was decided that clause (a) (iv) was attracted to that case, in that, the coparcener had distributed his own properties amongst his wife and children in the guise of a partition. The learned Judges said :
Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat on 28 April, 1961
(17) Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel v. Commr. of Income-tax, had also to interpret Section 16 (3) (a) (iv). There an individual voluntarily threw his self-acquired property into the hotch-pot to convert his separate property into joint family property. Later on, there was a division of this property, amongst the members of the family by metes and bounds. In such a position, the Division Bench ruled that the latter transaction could not be regarded as a transfer by that individual to his wife or minor child so as to be covered by Section 16 (3) (a) (iv). They observed that the two transactions viz. , throwing the separate property into the common till and partitioning the joint family properties, were separate, genuine and independent transactions. They had also no occasion to deal with the question as to whether the blending could be described as a transfer within the contemplation of Section 16 (3) (a) (iv). But they accepted the argument of the learned Advocate-General, who was appearing for the department, that the effect of the action of the assessee in throwing his separate property into the common stock and declaring unequivocally his intent to convert some of his properties into joint family properties was to bring about a transfer of the said properties within the meaning of Section 16 (3), in preference to the contention of the counsel for the assessee inter alia that the transaction by which property ceased to be the property of a coparcener and became impressed with the character of coparcenary property did not itself amount to a transfer and that no transfer need precede the change. The Bench consisting of Chief Justice Desai and Justice Bhagwati, said that they were inclined to accept the plea urged by the learned Advocate-General that by reason of the operation of law, a transfer of property takes place when a member of a joint family throws his separate property into the hotch-pot of the joint family.