9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (12) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58. The assessee, G. Ethirajulu, was a partner of an unregistered firm, Kasetty Rangappa and Sons, for several years. By December 15, 1956, all the other partners of the firm retired and he became the sole proprietor of the business which he carried on as such till March 31, 1957. On April 1, 1957, he converted the business from a proprietary business into a partnership business, with himself and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded in the assets in assessing the value of the gift was not also accepted. The Gift-tax Officer assessed the value of 4 the gift at Rs. 1,00,000 and levied gift-tax on that amount. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Gift-tax. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the latter while holding that there was gift that the goodwill of the business should also be included in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying on a business, profession or vocation, to the extent to which the gift is proved to the satisfaction of the Gift-tax Officer to have been made bona fide for the purpose of such business, profession or vocation." It is apparent that the gift must satisfy two conditions before an assessee can claim the benefit of the exemption. They are : (1) it must be made in the course of carrying on a busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en if such transfer is to facilitate the business. There is an even more formidable obstacle in the way of the assessee. It appears to be essential, in order to claim the benefit of section 5(1)(xiv), that the business should continue to be that of the same person who made the gift. If, as a result of the gift, the business changes hands we do not see how the person making the gift can claim the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. George Kuruvilla. The decision appears to us to be wholly irrelevant. A gift made to a son out of love and affection was held to be not a gift which, attracted section 5(1)(xiv). We are unable to see how the decision can be of any possible assistance to the assessee. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
