Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no valid family settlement among the members of the family and that the civil court decree was collusive, so that the transfer of 3/4th share in the property amounted to a deemed gift.
Analysis: The property had been acquired and treated throughout as the assessee's individual property. Mere advancement of loans by the wife and sons did not create any antecedent title, claim or interest in the property. In the absence of such antecedent interest, there could be no genuine family settlement or partition. The civil court decree, being obtained to avoid tax, was not a bona fide family arrangement. The transfer of self-acquired property without adequate consideration therefore fell within the deeming provision governing gifts.
Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The finding that there was no valid family settlement and that the decree was collusive was upheld, and the transfer was treated as a deemed gift under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A valid family settlement requires antecedent title, claim or interest in the disputed property, and a transfer of self-acquired property to family members without such antecedent interest and without adequate consideration can constitute a deemed gift.