9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had, as per deed dt. 1st April, 1972, gifted certain immovable property belonging to the assessee in favour of Karta s daughter-in-law. Learned ITO took the view that the said gift was void under Hindu Law. Value of the gifted property was Rs. 53,000. 3. On appeal, ld. AAC found that the gift in question had been made by Karta with the consent of other members, that the said gift had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to CGT vs. R.M.D.M. Ranganathan Chettiar (1982) 133 ITR 890 (Mad) for the proposition that gift of ancestral immovable property by the Karta of HUF in favour of a member of the joint family was void. It was urged that in the case of Braham Dutt, relied on by the AAC only an alienation of movable property was involved. Assessee had cited CIT vs. Motilal Ram Swarup (1970) 76 ITR 43 (Raj) as having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, to para 5 of the said report. Following extract is relevant: "In any event as alienation by the Manager of the joint Hindu family even without legal necessity is voidable and not void." 7. Thus, the assessee argued that in the instant case, the only other coparcener, namely, Karta's son was agreeable to the gift in question and, in any case, the gift in question had not so far been got set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
