TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (8) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Mohammad. Three days later, a memorandum was reduced to writing confirming the oral gift on September 20, 1963. As to the vacant land, the assessee made an oral gift on April 1, 1966, in favour of a charitable trust. Mohd. and Noor Mohammad are the trustees of the trust. The trustees were delivered the vacant land. The two confirmation deeds executed by the donor on September 20, 1963, and on April 1, 1966, were not registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Begum Noor Banu Alladin died. Before the authorities under the Income -tax Act, 1961, the legal representatives of the donor asserted that the gifts were true and were made on September 17 of 1963 and April 1, 1966. The donor ceased to be the owner of the two properties. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to hold the land and did not receive any income is not at all doubted. On the other hand that the trustees of the donee-trust received the income is also accepted. It is in this circumstance the question at issue is under what classification of section 14 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the (income from the) property has to be computed as the income of the donee if at all such an income is to be taxed. The Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, referred the following question for the answer of this court "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the income from the house property known as Rockland House and also the lease amount from the land measuring 5 acres situated at Sanatnagar are assessable in the hands of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, did not as of fact decide the question. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Revenue that by "implication", the judgment supports the contention raised by the assessee. The next case Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 (SC) relates to a promise of gift made in favour of a college by the assessee. It was held as of fact that there was no gift made. What was assessed was a mere promise made by the assessee. Even as to that, it was stated as not part of business transaction, but a personal promise made by the assessee. In that, the assessee, (promisor) agreed to gift Rs. 10,00,000 to a college. The Supreme Court considered the facts and held that there was no gift made. The assessee made a promise in favour of a coll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se property. Income from houses are dealt with under a special provision under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, we understand the ratio in the Patna cases in the background of law with reference to what is laid down under section 22 of the Act. In both the cases, the transactions were entered into to redeem dower in favour of the respective spouses. In CIT v. Syed Sadique Imam [1978] 111 ITR 475 (Pat) [FB], it was held there was no transfer made. The document of transfer was not registered. The assessee-spouse ceased to hold the house, therefore, she is not accountable for the income derived from the house. In Syed Sadique Imam v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 62 (Pat), in a like situation, a contention was raised on behalf of the Revenue and sect....