1996 (6) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ions for the opinion of this court under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act : "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the throwing of the individual property into the hotchpot of the joint family would not amount to a 'disposition' within the meaning of section 27(1) of the Estate Duty Act, read with the Explanation t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Supreme Court in CED v. N. Shankaran [1992] 193 ITR 28, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the act of a member of a Hindu undivided family by which he impresses his individual property with the character of joint family property or throws it into the hotchpot of the joint family property or blends it with the joint family property is not a "disposition" within the meaning of the Estate Du .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as an entity by itself. It will be inaccurate to say that the father owns the property jointly with the family. The rule of survivorship is also abrogated in situations as in sections 6 and 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This was the view taken in A. N. K. Rajamani Ammal v. CED [1972] 84 ITR 790 (pages 795 and 796). Therefore, in the case of the property in the hands of a joint family, it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X