https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7392 Property purchased in the wife's name was not shown to be benami for the assessee, because the surrounding circumstances did not establish that she was merely a name-lender. The court considered the source of purchase money, possession, relationship, motive, custody of title deeds, and subsequent conduct, but found these factors insufficient to displace the registered title in the wife's name. It also held that the doctrine of advancement did not require a contrary inference and that, under the Marumakkathayam law applied on the facts, the husband's payment of consideration alone did not prove benami intention. The property was therefore treated as the wife's real asset and its value was excluded from the assessee's net wealth under section 4(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. en-us Tue, 29 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7392 Property purchased in the wife's name was not shown to be benami for the assessee, because the surrounding circumstances did not establish that she was merely a name-lender. The court considered the source of purchase money, possession, relationship, motive, custody of title deeds, and subsequent conduct, but found these factors insufficient to displace the registered title in the wife's name. It also held that the doctrine of advancement did not require a contrary inference and that, under the Marumakkathayam law applied on the facts, the husband's payment of consideration alone did not prove benami intention. The property was therefore treated as the wife's real asset and its value was excluded from the assessee's net wealth under section 4(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Tue, 29 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7392