Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1969 (10) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... contract business and some brick kiln business at Saharanpur. Till the assessment year 1957-58, he was assessed as an individual. He possessed certain self-acquired property. In his account books there was an entry dated March 31, 1957, to the effect that in future the business of brick kiln would be the property of himself and his sons, that is to say, the Hindu undivided family. It was also noted that the money invested in the brick kiln to the extent of Rs. 69,174-14-3 shall be the property of the joint family from that date. On April 2, 1957, an agreement was entered into between Sri Jagdish Saran, his sons and his wife. It was stated in the agreement that the family shall carry on the business of brick kiln and income arising therefro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding, the property involved was the self-acquired property of the assessee. It was on that footing that the question of law has been referred to this court. We cannot, therefore, permit the assessee to take up the position that the property involved was joint family property even before March 31, 1957. We have merely to investigate the effect of conversion of self-acquired property into joint family property. In R. Subramania Iyer v. Commissioner of Income-tax it was pointed out by the Madras High Court that no formalities are necessary in order to impress upon self-acquired property the character of joint family property. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel it was held that partition of joint Hindu family propert .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner of Gift-tax it was held by the Mysore High Court that throwing self-acquired property into the common stock of blending it with other joint family property does not involve any transfer in the same way as partition does not involve transfer, and cannot amount to a gift within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act. In P. K. Subramania lyer v. Commissioner of Gift-tax it was held that where a coparcener of a Hindu undivided family throws his self-acquisitions into the hotch-potch of a joint family, he does not enter into any transaction. Such a unilateral act cannot amount to a gift within the meaning of section 2(vii) read with section 2(xxix)(d) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. That case was decided by Kerala High Court with reference to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ." The word "person" has been defined in clause (xviii) of section 2 of the Act: " 'Person' includes a Hindu undivided family or a company ......" The expression "transfer of property" has been defined in clause (xxiv) of section 2 of the Act: " 'Transfer of property' means any disposition, conveyance, assignment, settlement, delivery, payment or other alienation of property and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes - .... (d) any transaction entered into by any person with intent thereby to diminish directly or indirectly the value of his own property and to increase the value of the property of any other person." In some of the cases cited above, there is a discussion as to whether conversion of self-acq .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the conversion of the self-acquired property into joint family property by Sri Jagdish Saran was not voluntary. The last element is that the transfer must be without consideration in money or money's worth. There is no suggestion that the joint Hindu family passed any consideration to Sri Jagdish Saran to persuade him to convert his self-acquired property into joint family property. Thus, all the elements of gift given in clause (xxii) of section 2 of the Act were satisfied in the instant case. The transaction constitutes a gift under section 2 (xxii) of the Gift-tax Act. We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative, and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay the Commissioner of Gift-tax, Lucknow, Rs. 200 (r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates