1982 (8) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether parting with the share of property by the assessee in favor of her brothers amounted to a transfer of property within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the amount received by the assessee would not form the subject-matter of the assessment to capital gains in view of the provisions of section 47(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Transfer of Property u/s 2(47)

The court examined whether the relinquishment of the assessee's share in the disputed property constituted a "transfer" within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act. The court held that the assessee did acquire a right in the disputed property under the will of Smt. Lilawati Gupta. Upon the death of Smt. Lilawati, the assessee became a co-owner of a specific share in the property. The court concluded that the relinquishment of her right, title, and interest in the property by means of the compromise dated 15th December 1970 amounted to a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. Thus, the court answered this question in the affirmative, in favor of the Department and against the assessee.

Issue 2: Exemption from Capital Gains u/s 47(ii)

The court analyzed whether the amount received by the assessee would be exempt from capital gains tax under section 47(ii) of the Income-tax Act. Section 47(ii) exempts any distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm, body of individuals, or other association of persons. The court found that the co-owners did not constitute a "body of individuals" as their shares were definite and ascertainable, and they did not hold the property with the object of producing income. The court also noted that the transaction did not amount to a distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a body of individuals. Therefore, the court concluded that the transaction was not exempt from capital gains tax under section 47(ii). The court answered this question in the negative, in favor of the Department and against the assessee.

Conclusion:

The court ruled in favor of the Department on both issues, determining that the relinquishment of the property by the assessee constituted a transfer and was subject to capital gains tax. The Department was awarded costs assessed at Rs. 250.