Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>High Court affirms Tribunal decision in favor of assessee on gift tax issues.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Versus Shri OP. Srivastava And Others</h3> Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Versus Shri OP. Srivastava And Others - [2013] 357 ITR 1 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 16 of the Gift Tax Act, 1958.2. Determination of whether the transfer of property was made for adequate consideration under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Gift Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Proceedings Initiated Under Section 16 of the Gift Tax Act:The Tribunal upheld the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 16 of the Gift Tax Act, 1958. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 16 dated 27.2.1998, calling upon the assessee to furnish his return of gift. The Tribunal recorded that the Assessing Officer should have a reasonable belief for concluding that there was a deemed gift. The Commissioner of Gift Tax (Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer lacked information indicating that the market value of the shares was less than the price paid by the assessee. The Tribunal consolidated the appeals and decided that the reassessment proceedings were valid.2. Determination of Adequate Consideration Under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Gift Tax Act:The Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority concluded that the transfer of property was made for adequate consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that 'adequate consideration' should be considered in a broad sense and not merely as the market value. The Tribunal held that the expression 'adequate consideration' is not equivalent to market value and must be determined with reference to the circumstances of the transaction. The Tribunal found that the shares were sold at face value, and the company had no power to sell shares below face value, thus no gift was made.The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Gift Tax Act, which requires that property transferred should be other than cash and the transfer should be otherwise than for adequate consideration. The Tribunal found that since the shares were subscribed at face value and not below it, the transaction did not constitute a gift. The Tribunal's view was supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, which held that the transfer of cash does not fall under Section 4 (1) (a).The Tribunal also referred to the judgments in Sri Gopal Jalan & Co. vs. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited and Khoday Distilleries Limited vs. C.I.T., which held that the creation of shares does not amount to a transfer. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Gift Tax vs. Rockman Cycle Industry Limited also supported this view, stating that subscribing to shares does not constitute a gift as there is no transfer involved.The Tribunal concluded that the subscription to shares at face value by the assessee, who are the promoters of the company, cannot be regarded as inappropriate in a commercial sense. The Tribunal found no evidence of inadequate consideration and upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision that the assessee had not made a gift.Conclusion:The High Court confirmed the Tribunal's judgment, finding no grounds to interfere. Both substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of all appeals.