COURT: | Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) |
CORAM: | C. V. Bhadang J, M. S. Sonak J |
SECTION(S): | 2(47), 45, 48 |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | capital gains, family arrangement, transfer |
COUNSEL: | Mihir Naniwadekar |
DATE: | November 18, 2019 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | January 18, 2020 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 1999-00 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
Capital Gains from Family Arrangements: A family settlement which is a settlement amongst family members in the context of their 'preexisting right' is not a "transfer". Such a settlement only defines a preexisting joint interest as a separate interest. However, if there is no preexisting right, the family arrangement constitutes a "transfer". Merely because dispute involved some family members and such dispute is ultimately settled by filing consent terms, the same cannot be styled as a family arrangement or family settlement so as to hold that the consideration received as a result of such settlement, does not constitute capital gain (all imp verdicts referred) |
The settlement between the Appellant and the said two persons can hardly be described as a family settlement. The settlement may be enforceable inter-parties now that the same is incorporated in the consent terms, based upon a consent decree may have been issued. However such settlement, cannot be called as a family settlement or family arrangement, as is understood in the case of Kale and others (supra) or in the case of Sachin Ambulkar (supra). Merely because dispute involved some family members and such dispute is ultimately settled by filing consent terms, the same cannot be styled as a family arrangement or family settlement and on such basis, it cannot be held that the consideration received as a result of such settlement, does not constitute capital gain.
Recent Comments