9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the agreements dated 19-8-1980 and 20-6-1981 should be considered a supplement to the earlier partition dated 12-9-1955 or as a family arrangement not amounting to a transfer for assessing capital gains. 2. Whether the transactions involving the transfer of assets and shares were genuine family arrangements exempt from capital gains tax. 3. Whether the transactions could be considered as transfers subject to capital gains tax based on the Income-tax Officer's assessment. 4. Whether the CIT(A) correctly rejected the assessee's contentions and computed the capital gains assessable. 5. Whether the Appellate Tribunal should uphold the assessee's claim that the transactions were family arrangements not constituting transfers for tax purposes. Analysis: 1. The assessee claimed that the agreements dated 19-8-1980 and 20-6-1981 were part of a family arrangement or a supplement to the earlier partition. The Income-tax Officer rejected this, deeming the transactions as transfers subject to capital gains tax. The CIT(A) also dismissed the claim, citing limitations on reopening partitions beyond the prescribed period. However, the Appellate Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, citing principles of family arrangements as beneficial for the family's peace and security. 2. The assessee contended that the transactions were genuine family arrangements exempt from capital gains tax. The CIT(A) increased the assessable capital gains but the Appellate Tribunal disagreed, asserting that the transactions were bona fide family arrangements aligned with established legal principles. The Tribunal emphasized that realignment of interests through family arrangements does not constitute transfers subject to capital gains tax. 3. The Income-tax Officer assessed the transactions as transfers subject to capital gains tax, considering the extinguishment of debts and other payments as part of the consideration. The CIT(A) upheld this assessment, leading to an enhanced capital gains amount. However, the Appellate Tribunal overturned this decision, ruling that the transactions did not amount to transfers and thus were not liable for capital gains tax. 4. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's contentions, emphasizing the completion of the partition in 1955 and the registration of shares in subsequent years. The Appellate Tribunal disagreed, citing established legal precedents on family arrangements and the absence of transfer of title in the transactions. The Tribunal held that the transactions did not attract capital gains tax. 5. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim that the transactions were family arrangements exempt from capital gains tax. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's arguments, emphasizing the bona fide nature of the arrangements and the absence of transfers. The Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to re-compute the total income, deleting the capital gains assessed by the lower authorities.
|
