REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Appellant

V/S

SAYED SADDIQUE IMAM Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

FIDA ALI V. MUZAFFAR ALI [REFERRED TO]
ABBAS ALI SHIKDAR V. KARIM BAKSH SHIKDAR [REFERRED TO]
HOYSTEAD V. COMMR. OF TAXATION [REFERRED TO]
COMMR. OF INCOME TAX V. BRIJLAL LOHIA AND MAHABIR PRASAD KHEMKA [REFERRED TO]
SOCIETY OF MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH V. HOPE [REFERRED TO]
CAFFOOR V. INCOMETAX COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR ROY CHOWDHARY V. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX.,AIR 1976 SC 772 [REFERRED TO]
SERAJUDDIN HALDAR V. ISAB HALDAR [REFERRED TO]
BASHIR AHMAD V. MT. ZUBAIDA KHATUN [REFERRED TO]
TALIB AH V. KANIZ FATIMA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
FATEH ALI SHAH V. MAHOMED BAKHSH [REFERRED TO]
KANIRAM GANPAT RAI V. COMMR,OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
MT. SARDAR KHATUN V. SECRETARY OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
SANKARALINGA NADAR V. COMMR,OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. HASHIM V. AMINABI [REFERRED TO]
ZAINAB BI V. JAMAL KHAN [REFERRED TO]
TULSIDAS KILACHAND CHINUBHAI KILACHAND AMBALAL KILACHAND RAMDAS KILACHAND VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY CITY I IN ALL THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
INSTALMENT SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYALAL LOHIA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
NEW JEHANGIR VAKIL MILLS CO LIMITED BHAVNAGAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY NORTH KUTCH AND SAURASHTRA AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]
KAMLAPAT MOTILAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM ABBAS VS. RAZIA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
MASUM VALI SAHEB VS. ILLURI MODIN SAHIB [REFERRED TO]
BIBI MANIRAN VS. MOHAMMAD ISHAQUE [REFERRED TO]
SARIFUDDIN MUHAMMAD VS. MOHIUDDIN MOHAMMAD [REFERRED TO]
SABURANNESSA VS. SABDU SHEIKH [REFERRED TO]
JAITUNBI FATRUBHAI VS. FATRUBHAI KASAMBHAI [REFERRED TO]
MT KULSUM BIBI VS. BASHIR AHMAD [REFERRED TO]
MA MI VS. KALLANDER AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
MT SAIFUL BIBI VS. ABDUL AZIZ KHAN [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR PRASAD VS. SYED MUSTAFA HUSAIN [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD USMAN KHAN VS. AMIR MAIN [REFERRED TO]
HITENDRA SINGH VS. MAHARAJA OF DARBHANGA [REFERRED TO]
S.V.S. MUHAMMAD YUSUF ROWTHER AND ANR. VS. MUHAMMAD YUSUF ROWTHER AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, has made a reference to this Court under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for opinion on the following question of law:

(2.) THE assessee is an individual, For the assessment year 1965-66, the corresponding accounting year of which ended on the 31st March, 1965, the assessee claimed that the income from the residential house, situate in the Town of Patna, was not assessable in his hands, as the house was transfer-red to his wife in discharge of dower-debt. THE Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee as there was no registered document evidencing the transfer of the house in discharge of the dower-debt and included the net income from the residential house in the income of the assessee, relying on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mahomed Usman Khan v. Amir Main, (ILR 26 Pat 561: AIR 1949 Pat 237). THE assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the claim of the assessee, folllowing the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1963-64, in Income-tax Appeal No. 10544 of 1964-65, dated the 12th April, 1966. THE De-partment thereupon filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal, following its earlier decision, It may be mentioned that against the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1963-64, also an identical question came up to this court in a reference and the question was refrained and answered in favour of the assessee in Tax Case No. 10 of 1968. THE High Court affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal that there being a valid and completed gift of the house to the wife, in lieu of dower-debt, the income of the house was not taxable in the hands of the assessee.

(3.) THE main question that falls for consideration in this case is as to whether the assesses could make a valid oral gift to his wife in lieu of the dower-debt. An identical question came up for consideration before this court in the case of Mohammed Usman Khan (AIR 1949 Pat 237 supra), and a Bench of this court, on consideration of various authorities, both textual and judicial, came to the conclusion that such a transaction is not a true hiba-bil-iwaz, but a sale, as defined in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Ramaswami J., (as he then was) in his leading judgment, observed as follows (at p. 239):--

Click here to view full judgment.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SYED SADDIQUE IMAM

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address