2012 (10) TMI 1160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arasinham and ors. [1966 (3) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT] held that there is no transfer of assets in the family arrangement and the amount received by the assessee is part of the family arrangement and not towards the transfer of any capital assets and hence no Capital Gains Tax liability arises. In our opinion, the decision of the ITAT is based on finding of facts, hence no question of law arises. - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,000/received by the assessee on transfer of his right, title and interest in the family property to the party of the second part under family settlement is a Capital Gain liable to be taxed u/s. 45 of I.T.Act? 2. The ITAT in para 19 of its order has recorded thus: 19. We find that in the instant case there has been a genuine dispute among the family members and several suits were filed a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... settlement only defines a preexisting joint interest as separate interests, there is no conveyance, if the arrangement is bonafied. Since there is no conveyance, there is no need for registration of such arrangements, when orally made, even if later reduced to writing. 3. The ITAT following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maturi Pullaiah and Anr. v. Maturi Narasinham and ors. r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X