1997 (12) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing so was that the funds should be used for the benefit of the entire family. With those funds Appa Rao did business and entered into other various transactions. In course of time, Appa Rao acquired properties in his name utilising the money derived from the business and from the properties acquired therefrom. As disputes arose regarding the said properties and the businesses, the disputes were referred to the arbitration of two members of the Madras Bar named as joint arbitrators. Under the arbitration award, the properties were divided by metes and bounds and allotted to the members of the family. The assessee got 60 acres of land in Kollur Village, Ponneri Taluk, and a plot of vacant land in the city of Madras at Vepery. During the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... them as a joint family, such property is the coparcenary property of the persons who have acquired it, whether it is an increment to ancestral property, or whether it has arisen without any nucleus of ancestral property." The High Court took into account the nature of the gift and referred to the arbitration decision. The High Court noted that the decree was ultimately passed in terms of the above. The High Court ultimately observed: "There is clear evidence that Srimathi K. Shyamalambal, wife of K. Satyanarayana, had funds of her own and with the clear intention of benefiting the family as a whole she provided funds to K. Appa Rao and with the assistance of the money so advanced and keeping the said money as a nucleus, K. Appa Rao did .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lambal, wife of K. Satyanarayana, had funds of her own. With a clear intention of benefiting the family as a whole she provided funds to K. Appa Rao. The money in the hands of K. Appa Rao has to be treated as joint family property because Smt. Shyamalambal clearly indicated at the time of making of the gift that the funds were to be utilised only for the benefit of the family. K. Appa Rao, M. Satyendra Kumar and other brothers jointly held the property. The Tribunal (High Court ?) from all these facts came to the conclusion that the money received by the assessee was part of the joint family property. The assessee has to be taxed in the status of an individual (HUF ?). We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the High Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X