TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed? - HELD THAT:- As decided in The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai 34 Vs. Smt.Deepa Vijay [ 2021 (1) TMI 787 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] wherein had done an elaborate factual exercise, gone through the covenants and conditions contained in the said document dated 19.12.2010 and held that the said document was only a deed of gift because it was voluntary as there was no consideration passed on and the donee accepted the gift unconditionally. The correctness of the factual finding was tested by the Tribunal, which had also gone through the issue in detail, taken note of the decision of the same Tribunal in the case of other owners namely Shri T.T.Siddharth and Smt.Maya Varadarajan [ 2016 (5) TMI 1549 - ITAT CHENNAI ] and dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 54F of ₹ 8 crores and ₹ 36.99 crores. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessees had been gifted Trade Mark by way of Settlement Deed dated 19.12.2010 by Mrs.Malathi Rangaswami and Mr.T.T.Varadarajan. Trade Mark being a capital asset, settled without any consideration of money or money's worth and was transferred out of natural love and affection to the assessees. The assessees claimed exemption under Section 49(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Since the period during which the previous owners held the right over the Trade Mark was also to be considered for deciding whether the asset is of long term capital asset, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation in Sec.2(29A) r.w.s 2(42A) is holding for more than 36 months? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was correct and justified in holding that Expl.1(b) below sec.2(42A) is applicable and the period of holding of the asset by the previous owner also needs to be considered even though assessee did not receive the asset through gift or will as mentioned in sec.49(i)(ii) but by settlement deed? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal erred in holding that there is no legal differences between settlement and gift overlooking the detailed discussion made by Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in his order? 5.When the appeals are taken up for hearing, Mr.Karth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will as mentioned in Section 49(1)(ii) but by settlement deed? 3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/assessee. 4. The assessee, who is an individual, filed the return of income for the assessment year under consideration namely AY 2012-13 on 29.8.2012 by showing income from salaries at ₹ 12 lakhs. In fact, the income returned by the assessee included the long term capital gains to the tune of ₹ 16,49,71,644/- after claiming deduction of ₹ 3,50,28,356/- under Section 54F of the Act. It came to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and held that the said document was only a deed of gift because it was voluntary as there was no consideration passed on and the donee accepted the gift unconditionally. The correctness of the factual finding was tested by the Tribunal, which had also gone through the issue in detail, taken note of the decision of the same Tribunal in the case of other owners namely Shri T.T.Siddharth and Smt.Maya Varadarajan [ITA.Nos.2074 and 2075/Mds/ 2015 dated 11.5.2016] and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in this regard. 8. On going through the orders passed by both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal, we find that the entire issue deeply revolves around the factual matrix, which, in our considered view, has been thoroughly examined by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
