9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court in T. C. P. Nos. 63 and 64 of 1980 dated November 3, 1980, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for our opinion under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is the owner of the property under consideration and that income therefrom is properly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a sum of Rs. 3,100 subject to the discharge of the above mortgage for Rs. 1,20,000 plus interest and also prior charge of Rs. 10,000. Thus, the property was purchased by Lingaiah Naidu in the court auction. In the meanwhile, the validity of the above mortgage and the subsequent sale were questioned in the suits filed by the sons of Sundaram Chettiar. The trial court upheld the validity of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid agreement dated September 22, 1973. She did not claim any right over the said property. The appeal filed by the sons of Sundaram Chettiar against Ethirajulu Naidu and others ended in a compromise recorded on July 10, 1974, in O. S. A. No. 37 of 1972 before the High Court, Madras. As per the above compromise, the assessee herein purchased the property in question for a sum of Rs. 20,000. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e absolute owner of the abovesaid property. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the property income is assessable in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal pointed out that the property was purchased by the assessee according to the abovesaid compromise decree and subsequently a major portion of the property was sold for a sum of Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
