Law:

Section:

Section 6 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 - Valuation of gift - Shares - Assessment year 1990-91 - Assessee made a revocable gift of 6,000 shares to OP Associates in assessment year 1982-83 - Donee received 28,000 bonus shares and dividend during that period - Assessing Officer made addition to assessee's income on hypothesis that gift was void - Whether in absence of evidence to show that all 34,000 shares, viz., 6,000 originally gifted and 28,000 bonus shares, had reverted to assessee, it could be said that dividend on 28,000 shares would represent income of assessee - Held, no - Whether dividend which had accrued during period when gift was in force should not be deemed to have reverted to assessee on revocation of gift, and if dividend belonged to donee, bonus shares could not be treated differently - Held, yes FACTS The assessee filed his return declaring an income. During the course of proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had made a revocable gift of 6,000 shares of a company to O.P. Associates during the assessment year 1982-83 and the donee had received 28,000 bonus shares during the period from 1982-83 to 1990-91 along with the dividend. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as income in hands of the assessee on the hypothesis that the gift made by him during the assessment year 1982-83 was void. Thus, the amount was added to the taxable income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appeal filed by the assessee. On the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeal under section 260A : HELD In view of the decision in CGT v. Satya Nand Munjal [2002] 256 ITR 516 (Punj. & Har.), the revocable gift made by the assessee to O.P. Associates could not be held to be void. However, it was contended that the gift being revocable, the bonus shares also should be deemed to have reverted to the donor on the revocation of the gift; thus, the income derived by the respondent-assessee after the revocation of the gift should be treated as his income. This contention was never raised before the Tribunal. The issue did not arise out of the order. Thus, the revenue could not be permitted…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492