1985 (8) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... father as an HUF property and the income cannot be included in his individual assessment. The ITO did not accept this submission. He held that the intention of the assessee's father that the property should be treated as joint family property is not clear from the will dated 7-8-1969 executed by him. Thus, the house property which the assessee got under the will dated 7-8-1969 is individual prope....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he executor but not to their families. Hence, the AAC was wrong in holding that the property belongs to the HUF. The learned counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order of the AAC. He urged that the language of the will clearly indicates that the property was given to the sons and their families under the will dated 7-8-1969. He laid stress on the words 'Puthra Pouthra Paramparya', and s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tor. In M.P. Periakaruppan Chettiar v. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 1 the Supreme Court considered the use of the words 'heirs, executors, administrators and assignees' used in the gift deeds. On the basis of the above words in the above case it was contended for the assessee that the gift was to the sons as heads of the respective families. The Supreme Court did not accept this submission. It was held as un....