Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.90 seconds)Section 12 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 12A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
G. Narayana Raju vs G. Chamaraju & Others on 19 March, 1968
Whether a coparcener has thrown his self-acquired property into the common stock and blended it with joint property is entirely a question of fact to be decided in the light of all circumstances of the case (See Narayana Raju v. Chamaraju, AIR 1968 SC 1276). Mere permitting user of the property or its income by other members of the joint family out of generosity or kindness of the holder is not enough. The holder cannot also be deprived of his self acquired property merely because he does not maintain a separate account of the earning out of that property.
Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi vs Duddukuru Subba Rao on 10 May, 1957
12. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Dasaratharami Reddi v. Subba Rao, AIR 1957 SC 797, Ramchandra Shukla v. Shree Mahadeoji, AIR 1970 SC 458, and S. Shanmugham Pillai v. K. Shanmugham Pillai, AIR 1972 SC 2069), and certain other decisions.
S. Shanmugam Pillai And Ors vs K. Shanmugam Pillai And Ors on 4 May, 1972
In one of these decisions, i.e., S. Shanmugham Pillai's case, it has been observed in para. 32 that a dedication may be either partial or complete, and whether or not it is so would naturally be a question of fact to be determined in each case on the terms of the relevant document, if the dedication in question was made under a document. It was further pointed out that in such a case it is always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the parties and that such an intention must be gathered on a fair and reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole. Their Lordships further observed (p. 2076) :
Omprakash And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 20 March, 1982
From what we have stated above, we are clearly of the opinion that the alleged gift of the property to the idol was a mere scheme for making the property inalienable and from the scrutiny of the two deeds (Exs. P-1 and P-2), we are satisfied that there had been no genuine divestiture in favour of the idol and the endowments were only sham. From these circumstances, the lower court has rightly found that there was no real gift in favour of the deity, Paluram, the author of these two documents, did not have the slightest intention to dedicate any property to the deity, but by the device of creation of the trust, the real purpose was to shield the property from being proceeded against by the income-tax authorities for recovery of income-tax dues of the HUF. Under somewhat similar circumstances, such an inference was drawn by a Division Bench of this court in Omprakash v. Union of India [1983] 144 ITR 247.
Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi And Ors. on 22 September, 1959
Before the execution of the deeds of dedication (Exs. P-1 and P-2), the income from the suit property was also shown in the income-tax and wealth-tax returns as the income of the joint family. Indeed, on September 7, 1950, Paluram, describing himself as karta of the HUF, voluntarily declared before the Income-tax Investigation Commission (Ex. D-1C) that the family concealed an income of Rs. 6,50,000 during the assessment years 1941-42 to 1949-50 and that the assets of that assessee, i.e., the undivided family, included "a two-storeyed building with garden (Sewa Kunj) and 10 one storey buildings in Civil Lines, Raigarh, all standing in the name of Paluram Baijnath". This unqualified admission by Paluram, in our opinion, goes a long way and, if not conclusive, is yet decisive of the issue, unless successfully withdrawn or shown to be erroneous: Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100. We are satisfied that the plaintiffs have not been able to withdraw this admission nor could they show it to be erroneous. In the plaint, no averment appears showing the circumstances under which this admission was made. At the stage of evidence also, no attempt worth the name was made in this direction. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, argued that the assets in Ex. D-1C are the total assets of individual members of the family. This explanation is not at all convincing in view of the unequivocal language employed in that document. On the other hand, from the various assessment orders in income-tax and wealth-tax cases against the HUF of Paluram Dhanania, it appears that the suit property as also its income was treated as the property of the joint family. This was so prior to, as also subsequent to, the creation of the alleged endowments in the years 1953 and 1955. Paluram Dhanania himself never objected to this. This conduct is also very significant and points out that the suit property was all along treated as joint family property during the lifetime of Paluram Dhanania.