TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs set apart by the karta for his three daughters was void as a gift made by a sole surviving coparcener, (ii) whether the transaction was a family settlement or partial partition rather than a gift, and (iii) whether the payment made for the daughters' maintenance and education was a taxable gift or deemed gift under the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
Issue (i): Whether the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs set apart by the karta for his three daughters was void as a gift made by a sole surviving coparcener.
Analysis: A sole surviving coparcener has power to deal with joint family property as if it were separate property. The adopted son's prior undivided coparcenary interest related to the larger family and did not extend to the property that later came to the assessee-HUF. The daughters' possible claim for maintenance did not curtail the karta's power of disposition so as to render the transfer void ab initio.
Conclusion: The transaction was not void on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the transaction was a family settlement or partial partition rather than a gift.
Analysis: A family settlement may be brought about unilaterally by a father or karta where the arrangement is made to maintain peace and provide for family members. The unmarried daughters had a legally recognisable right to maintenance from the joint family property, and provision for education was treated as part of that obligation. The declaration setting apart the amount therefore operated as a family settlement and not as a gratuitous transfer.
Conclusion: The transaction was a family settlement and not a gift.
Issue (iii): Whether the payment made for the daughters' maintenance and education was a taxable gift or deemed gift under the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
Analysis: A gift requires a voluntary transfer without consideration in money or money's worth. Here, the amount was set apart in discharge of the family's legal obligation to maintain the unmarried daughters, and the provision for education was integral to that obligation. Such a settlement does not answer the statutory definition of gift and does not constitute a deemed gift either.
Conclusion: The amount was not taxable as a gift or deemed gift.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the substantive issues, and the gift-tax assessment could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A settlement by a Hindu joint family for the maintenance and education of unmarried daughters, made in discharge of a legal family obligation, is not a voluntary transfer without consideration and therefore is not a gift within the Gift-tax Act.
TaxTMI 
