| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1977 SLG 967 1977 SLD 967 (1977) 106 ITR 681 |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
GT REFERENCE No. 1 OF 1972 OCTOBER 11, 1976
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, ACTG, C.J. AND M. R. SHARMA, J.
D.N. Awasthy and B.K. Jhingan for the Applicant. D.K. Gupta and S.S. Mahajan for the
Respondent.
GT REFERENCE No. 1 OF 1972 OCTOBER 11, 1976
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, ACTG, C.J. AND M. R. SHARMA, J.
D.N. Awasthy and B.K. Jhingan for the Applicant. D.K. Gupta and S.S. Mahajan for the
Respondent.
Addl. Commissioner of Gift-tax
v.
Kanshi Ram Doongarshi Dass
Law:
Section:
Section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 - Exemption - Karta of HUF made gift of certain amount in favour of his wife - Whether in absence of any material to show that donor acted as manager of HUF and not as individual when he made gift to his wife, Tribunal was justified in holding that said gift was exempt under section 5(1)(viii) - Held, yes FACTS The karta of HUF, made a gift of certain amounts of money in favour of his wife. The gifts were made through the books of account of certain firm, the transfers being made from the fund of the HUF of which he was the karta. The Tribunal, purporting to follow the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jana Veera Bhadrayya v. Commissioner of Gift-tax [1966] 59 ITR 176 (AP) held that the gifts were exempt from Gift-tax. On reference : HELD There was no material placed before the High Court to show that donor acted as manager of the HUF and not as an individual when he made the gift to his wife. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jana Veera Bhadrayya v. Commissioner of Gift-tax [1966] 59 ITR 176 (AP) as well as in the later case of Vadrevu Venkappa Rao v. Commissioner of Gift-tax [1974] 95 ITR 313 (AP) held that there was nothing to indicate that the gift was being made in any capacity other than as husband. When the Tribunal found in the instant case that the case of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Jana Veera Bhadrayya's case (supra ) concluded the matter, it appeared that the Tribunal was satisfied that there was nothing to indicate that the gifts had been made by the karta in any capacity other than as husband. The reference was, therefore, rejected. The petition was dismissed. Note: The case was decided against revenue. CASES REFERRED TO Jana Veera Bhadrayya v. CGT [1966] 59 ITR 176 (AP) and Vadrevu Venkappa Rao v. CGT [1974] 95 ITR 313 (AP). JUDGMENT O. Chinnappa Reddy, Actg, CJ.-Jai Chand, karta of a Hindu undivided family, made a gift of certain amounts of money in favour of his wife. The gifts were made through the books of account of M/s. Kanshi Ram Doongarshi Dass, the transfers being made from the fund of the Hindu undivided family of which Jai Chand was the karta. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal,…
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