1986 (4) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... right in holding that the settlement deed dated September 21, 1972, did not result in an outright gift of an immovable property and that this deed and the agreement of September 22, 1972, have to be read together ? " In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal. The assessee and her husband, M. Vasudeva Rao, who were the owners of certain immovable properties situated in the City of Bangalore settled them in favour of Sri M. Ramachandra Rao and Smt. M. Rajani, their son and daughter, respectively, under a registered settlement deed dated September 21, 1972. In the original settlement deed drawn up and presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, it appears th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner and the Gift-tax Officer. On February 17, 1978, the Tribunal allowed the said appeal and remitted the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for fresh determination treating the agreement and the deed as one document. Hence, this reference. Sri K. Srinivasan, learned senior standing counsel for the Income-tax Department appearing for the. Revenue, contends that in the determination of the question whether the settlement deed was a gift or not, it was not open to the Tribunal to rely on the agreement and make any determination. Sri T. V. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, contends that the settlement deed and the agreement had to be read as one document and the direction made by the Tribunal was le....