9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence should be made to the balance-sheet of the said company as on March 31, 1978, and not with reference to the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1979?" 2. It has been claimed that the aforementioned question has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal dated February 6, 1984, rendered in GTA No. 3 of 1983. 3. The brief facts which emerge from the statement prepared by the Commissioner are that the assessee had sold during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, 150 shares (100 shares to Ripan Kumar, son of the karta of the assessee-joint family and 50 shares to Ms. Ekta, another member of the family). He had sold shares at Rs. 1,000 per share. According to the Gift-tax Officer, the shares were sold at the value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is evident from the perusal of para. 4 which reads thus : "We first take up the appeal of the Revenue for disposal. We are not moved by the plea that it was a transaction of sale only and there is no element of gift involved in it, because the sale was made to the members of the family. The respondent-assessee has not been able to rebut this presumption that the sale of shares at Rs. 1,000 per share could be made only to a member of the family and not to a third party. If there had been any sale made to a third party at Rs. 1,000 per share, the assessee could have controverted the plea that the sales to the members of the family were not coloured by the element of personality. But, having rejected the plea of the assessee, that the transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 31st March, 1978. We accordingly, uphold the finding of the Commissioner of Gift-tax and reject the plea of the Revenue to the contrary as of no substance and merit." 5. Mr. Vivek Sethi, learned counsel for the Revenue, has made an attempt to attack the order of the Tribunal by asserting that the Gift-tax Officer had rightly assessed the gift-tax by applying the break up method. However, he was not able to explain the view taken by the Division Bench of this court in the case of CGT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi [2001] 250 ITR 677. The Division Bench by following the view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CGT v. H. H. Sethi Parvathi Bai [1984] 145 ITR 124 (Ker) has decided the question of law in favour of the assessee and against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
