Gift Tax Act 1958 Cease To Have Effect On Or After The 01 10 1998 Section 22 Appeal To The Deputy Commissioner Appeals From Orders Of Assessing Officers - Judgment Search Results

Ms. Gemini Pictures Circuit P. Ltd Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Inco ...

Court: Chennai

Tribunal is right in law confirming the order of the Gift Tax Officer in bringing to tax the deemed gift on Officer rejected the assessee's objection and ultimately arrived at the taxable gift as had been arrived at by the valuation officer. for the purpose of Section 4(1) of the Gift Tax Act, when one has to go by Schedule II of the of transfer of the said capital asset and holding company ceased to hold the shares of the subsidiary company after the to say that the value adopted by the assessee for effecting the transfer were illusory or abnormal to adopt the value refers to 98, Radhakrishna Salai, Madras of an extent of 10.653 grounds and the total consideration as on 19.2.1987, the date one. In a matter of valuation, for the purpose of Section 4(1) of the Gift Tax Act, when one has to under the Notification Numbers 2620 and 5121 of 1964 dated 22.10.1964 of the Government of Tamilnadu, by reason of fact that Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Rs.10 lakhs. It is seen from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that in the course of the justified. Aggrieved against this order, the assessee is on present appeal.5. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee placed heavy reliance on Section 4(1) of the Gift Tax Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue went Tax (Appeals) that in the course of the proceedings, the Assessing Officer and the District Valuation Officer were called to submit The assessee contended therein that the valuation adopted by the officer failed to take into account the lease encumbering the property

S. Viji Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [1998]229ITR421(SC); JT1997(9)SC536; (1998)1SCC49; [1997]Supp6SCR62

draw a precise balance-sheet as on the date of the gift, that would afford quite an accurate basis and an ideal Madras High Court in the ease of Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Others v. S. Ram and Others : [1984]147ITR278(Mad) where the High Court Under Section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of High Court Under Section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the was referred by the Tribunal to the High Court Under Section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 :'Whether, on the case of the assessee. Under these circumstances, the judgment under appeal is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no judgment of the Madras High Court in the ease of Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Others v. S. Ram and Others case of the assessee. Under these circumstances, the judgment under appeal is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. of Association of the Company. Both the department and the assessee agree that the valuation should be made by following the are unable to uphold the assessee's contention. The Gift Tax Officer has to find out the correct value of the shares

H.H. Maharana Rajasaheb Shri Pratapsinhji Saheb of Wankaner Vs. Commis ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [1970]78ITR1(SC); JT1986(1)SC356

Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C', under Section 26(3A) of the Gift-tax Act,1958. The question referred for the opinion of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 695 of 1968 (Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift-tax1), our answer to the question referred is in be considered as a 'gift' as defined in the Gift-tax Act.6. For the reasons mentioned by us in our judgment in made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C', under Section 26(3A) of the Gift-tax Act,1958. The question referred for the the reasons mentioned by us in our judgment in Civil Appeal No. 695 of 1968 (Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift-tax1), in Civil Appeal No. 695 of 1968 (Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift-tax1), our answer to the question referred is in the reasons mentioned by us in our judgment in Civil Appeal No. 695 of 1968 (Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift-tax1), negative. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs in this reference. sum of Rs. 70,000 thrown into the hotchpotch of the assessee's joint family by the assessee 3. The assessment year with

Pyndah Satti Raju and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1977]108ITR249(AP)

question of the validity or otherwise of a deed of gift executed by one Tulsha Kunwar in favour of her only inclusive of medicines and furniture valued at Rs. 15,000 is taxable under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (Act No. 18 of 1958). furniture valued at Rs. 15,000 is taxable under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (Act No. 18 of 1958). 2. The assessee, Pynda taxable under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (Act No. 18 of 1958). 2. The assessee, Pynda Satti Raju, executed a settlement deed including certain transfers. The intention of the donor was to effect a transfer in praesenti of his proprietary interest to the to levy gift-tax on 'the market quotations of the rights'. 10. Mr. W.V.V. Sundara Rao, however, invited our attention to a right to obtain a specified number of right shares under Section 81 of the Companies Act, in a fresh issue of my adopted son, Ramasubramanyam, situated in the 7thWard, Door No. 22, at Pittapuram (in a rented building) and medicines,furniture, etc., valued the Madras High Court in S. R. Chockalingam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Gift-tax : [1968]70ITR397(Mad) held that the right to obtain in the Gift-tax Act. In that view, it upheld the order of the Tribunal directing the officer to levy gift-tax on Gift-tax Act, 1958 (Act No. 18 of 1958). 2. The assessee, Pynda Satti Raju, executed a settlement deed on January 31, view, it upheld the order of the Tribunal directing the officer to levy gift-tax on 'the market quotations of the rights'.

Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. V. Chithra

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2001]249ITR313(Ker)

the Tribunal was right in holding that no element of gift was involved when the assessee retired from the firm in gift chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the taxable gift and levied the gift-tax thereon. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no voluntary act by the assessee and that he had only relinquished his the penalty levied under Section 17(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?' 2. The facts which gave rise to the above ofmachinery to the third party for the sum of Rs. 10,75,220. In the appeal itwas upheld. Then the matter was taken she was a partner ?'In R. A. No. 61 of 1998 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of assessment made under Section 15(3) and the penalty levied under Section 17(1)(a). The Tribunal placing reliance on the decision in T. TheSupreme Court held that there was a gift and the appeal was dismissed.7. The facts of the present case are entirely The Department preferred an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the gift-tax assessment made under Section 15(3) and appealed to the Deputy Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals). The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the gift-tax assessment relying on the decision in CGT return, the penalty imposed was cancelled. The Department preferred an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the gift-tax the value of the shares in the firm. The assessment order as well as the statement of facts show that the and such relinquishment constituted a gift chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the taxable gift and levied the gift-tax for the price of Rs. 10,76,220. On thesefacts, the Gift-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee hadmade a gift

Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Inder Singh Rajput

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: [1998]233ITR660(Raj); 1998(1)WLC274; 1997(2)WLN87

Act, 1971, has amended sections 2 and 4 of the Gift-tax Act for the purpose. Under the amendment to Section 4 time being in force, for the purpose of computation of taxable gifts made by the individual, the said individual shall be case of Goli Eswariah v. CGT : [1970]76ITR675(SC) that the act of conversion of separate property by a coparcener of a under Clause (d) of Section 4 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, and as per this clause the gift could be said a gift in that section. These amendments have already taken effect from April 1, 1972, and apply for the assessment year in Section 4, deemed to be a gift under that section. Although under Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, the expression order passed by the Gift-tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who accepted the arguments advanced aggrieved by this order as passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and it took the matter before the Income-tax Tribunal. The order passed by the Gift-tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who accepted the arguments advanced would be assessed legally to gift-tax.6. A copy of the order may be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. the amount of Rs. 40,520 from the order of the Assessing Officer. The Department was aggrieved by this order as passed deemed gift. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Gift-tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner

Commissioner of Gift-tax, Bombay City I Vs. G.G. Morarji

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR406; [1965]58ITR505(Bom); 1965MhLJ645

relief is, therefore, clearly unsustainable. A gift which is deemed gift if good for being taxed is also good enough for gifts made after the 1st April, 1957, are chargeable to tax under section 3 subject to the other provisions contained in would amount to a gift within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Joshi also referred to us the definition of 'donee' on his wife by the aforesaid deed date December 22, 1958. The Gift-tax Officer held that the assessee to was not in clause (xxiv) so to restrict the operation and legal effect of creation of a trust in favour of the beneficiaries. 1957), at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule.' 10. Under the charging section thus, gifts made after the 1st to denial of the benefit which the legislature by enacting section 5 have conferred on a donor. It would mean that Rs. 50,000 each. By a deed of settlement dated December 22, 1958, the assessee settled the said sum of Rs. 1 the appellant to his wife.' The assessee took a further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. The view (hereinafter called as 'the Act') at the instance of the Commissioner of Gift-tax. 2. Facts giving rise to this reference ar that in the grounds of appeal in the memo of appeal (not before us) filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, Mr. Mehta, therefore, is not one arising out of the order made by the Tribunal under section 23 of the Act, trust property. There is, therefore, no gift involved by the assessee to his wife. It is not possible to accept the to tax thereunder. It was, however, contended before the Gift-tax Officer that the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 5(1)(viii)

K.M. Sheth Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR647; (1987)66CTR(Bom)129; [1988]170ITR406(Bom)

under a settlement was exempt under section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, was rightly rejected ?'2. Shri Mehta, learned counsel in the assessee's own cases - K. M. Sheth V. CIT : [1977]107ITR45(Bom) and CIT V. K. M. Sheth : [1986]160ITR814(Bom) thus :'5. (1) Gift-tax shall not be charged under this Act in respect of gifts made by any person - ... It is true that section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, quoted above exempts gift for the education of children to on education as and when necessary.4. It is true that section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, quoted above exempts gift in the assessee's own cases - K. M. Sheth V. CIT : [1977]107ITR45(Bom) and CIT V. K. M. Sheth : [1986]160ITR814(Bom) in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.6. No order as to costs. the Revenue.3. This takes us to the third question. The assessee had settled on trust 1,500 equity shares of Shree Changdeo the gifts are proved to the satisfaction of the Gift-tax Officer as being reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the

Subhash Dhanraj Choudhari and Others Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1991]192ITR298(Bom)

a consideration within the meaning of section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 3. If the answer to question No. 1 we are not concerned in this reference. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Gift-tax Officer in this behalf. within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Gift-tax Act. He computed the share of future profits surrendered by the within the meaning of section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 3. If the answer to question No. 1 is in result that the share of that partner got reduced from 10 annas to 6 annas and the son who joined the assuming there was a gift, the gift was exempt under section 5(1)(xiv). Reliance in this behalf was placed on the Supreme we are not concerned in this reference. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Gift-tax Officer in this behalf. : [1972]83ITR403(SC) . For the reasons given in the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the Supreme Court decision was not first question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The second question is consequential and is also answered in v. V.A. M. Ayya Nadar : [1969]73ITR761(Mad) , the Gift-tax Officer came to the conclusion that there was a gift made

Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Bandlamudi Subbaiah

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1980]123ITR509(AP)

the gifts made to the married daughters is eligible to gift-tax under the Gift-tax Act ? ' (2) Whether, on the Sambasiva Rao, C.J.1. This tax case raises questions under the Gift-tax Act and the general scope of Clause (vii) of Section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift-tax Act, even if the arrangement was reduced to writing much later make some other provision. By making such provision, it has ceased to have any monetary obligation towards the unmarried daughters. What of the married daughters is below the value of Rs. 10,000. The partition deed purported to have made presents of lands concerned, was accepted by the Tribunal on the basis of Section 5(1)(vii) of the G.T. Act, In regard to the unmarried law in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the gifts made to the married daughters result, the income-tax case is rejected. There will be no order as to costs. Rs. 30,625 were allotted to the three unmarried daughters.3. The assessee, which was the HUF, contended that it was not liable