Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        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.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found