TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal referred the following common question, for the opinion of this court for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 in the case of three different assessees, under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the transfer was not without adequate consideration and, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e stated consideration and also made the assessments of the difference as a deemed gift under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, for the two years, representing the respective assessee's share. On appeal, the Tribunal noted that in its earlier order in the case of Sri D. Pratapchandra Reddy, the Tribunal in its order, dated September 30, 1977, in I. T. A. No. 101/Mds. of 1976-77, had held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered to be inadequate. The adequate consideration is not necessarily what is ultimately determined by someone else as market value. Unless the price was such as to shock the conscience of the court, it would not be possible to hold that the transaction is otherwise than for adequate consideration. In the present case, on the facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no difference be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
