9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1964 (11) TMI 9 - SC - Income TaxWhether on the facts and circumstances of this case the throwing into the hotchpotch of the applicant s self-acquired property and the subsequent partition among the members of the Hindu undivided family is an indirect transfer of property so far as the wife and minor son are concerned within the meaning of section 16(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) of the Income-tax Act ? Held that - When the joint Hindu family property was partitioned there was no transfer of assets within section 16(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) to the wife or the minor son. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Interpretation of section 16(3)(a)(iii) and section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 regarding indirect transfer of property within a Hindu undivided family. Detailed Analysis: 1. Facts and Background: The case involves the conversion of self-acquired property into joint family property and subsequent partition within a Hindu undivided family. The appellant claimed assessment considering these changes, which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 2. Question Referred to High Court: The High Court was asked whether the conversion of self-acquired property into joint family property and subsequent partition among family members constitute an indirect transfer of property under section 16(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) of the Income Tax Act. 3. High Court Decision: The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, granting a certificate under section 66A(2) of the Act, indicating that the transactions did not amount to an indirect transfer as per the provisions of the Act. 4. Arguments Before Supreme Court: The counsel for the Revenue argued that the conversion and partition constituted an indirect transfer within the Act. The genuineness of the transactions was not disputed, emphasizing the change in ownership from the assessee to his wife and minor son. 5. Legal Interpretation: The debate centered on the interpretation of the term "transfer" within section 16(3)(a)(iii) and (iv). The Revenue contended that the transactions amounted to indirect transfers, while the appellant argued that there was no transfer in the strict sense. 6. Definition of 'Transfer': The Court analyzed the term 'transfer' in the context of the Act, emphasizing that the word should be construed strictly. Reference was made to precedents to determine the legislative intent behind the usage of 'transfer' in the statute. 7. Indirect Transfers: The Court deliberated on the concept of indirect transfers and the significance of the term 'indirectly' in the Act. Precedents were cited to distinguish between direct and indirect transfers, emphasizing the need for an actual transfer of assets. 8. Precedents and Case Law: The Court distinguished the present case from previous judgments, highlighting the absence of cross-gifts and the nature of the transactions involving conversion and partition within a Hindu undivided family. 9. Partition Analysis: The Court examined the nature of partition within a joint Hindu family, citing legal precedents to establish that partition does not constitute a transfer of assets within the scope of section 16(3)(a)(iii) and (iv). 10. Substance of Transaction: The Court rejected the argument to look at the substance of the transaction, emphasizing the need to adhere to the legal provisions strictly to prevent tax evasion and maintain the integrity of the tax system. 11. Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the conversion and partition within the Hindu undivided family did not amount to an indirect transfer of property under the Income Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
