1986 (3) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... question referred to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue reads as follows: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the property at No. 29, General Muthiah Mudali Street, Madras, was enjoyed by the four brothers as tenants-in-common, that each of the four co-owners should be assessed in respect of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....im cannot be taken to be a body of individuals falling within section 2(31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the instant case, the four co-owners had become owners of a property as a result of the two original owners, Krishnaveni Ammal and Chempakalakshmi Ammal, who were the daughters of one Munuswamy Chetty, who was the original owner of the property, surrendering their life interest in favour ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to the decision in N. P. Saraswathi Ammal v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 19 (Mad.) A careful reading of that decision will show that the capital asset in that case was in the form of a business in bus service which was bequeathed by the original owner to his widow and four sons under his will. At the time of the death of the testator, all the four sons were minors and the widow took charge of the operati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....seemed to have weighed with this court when the widow and her sons were treated as a body of individuals was that the integrity of the business continued with none of the legatees wishing to take his or her share and depart and this, according to the court, was a clear indication that the mother and the children were still keeping steps as a body of individuals. What is, however, important is that....