TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether withdrawal of amounts by coparceners from Hindu undivided family funds amounted to partial partition so that the amounts became individual assets; (ii) Whether the assessees were entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
Issue (i): Whether withdrawal of amounts by coparceners from Hindu undivided family funds amounted to partial partition so that the amounts became individual assets.
Analysis: On the Tribunal's finding, the withdrawals by the coparceners to the extent of the amounts in question evidenced a partial partition in the bigger Hindu undivided family. Once the partition was so treated, the coparceners did not stand as individual absolute owners in the sense contended for, but the smaller units retained the character recognised in Hindu law.
Conclusion: The withdrawal amounted to partial partition, and each member became a minor Hindu undivided family.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessees were entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
Analysis: The exemption depended on the character of the persons making the gifts. Since the members were treated as minor Hindu undivided families, the gifts made by them to their respective wives did not fall within the exemption provision. The earlier ruling relied upon by the Court was applied to the same legal situation.
Conclusion: The assessees were not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
Final Conclusion: The questions referred were answered against the assessees and in favour of the Revenue, with the legal consequence that the gifts were liable to gift-tax.
Ratio Decidendi: Where coparceners are found to have effected a partial partition resulting in smaller Hindu undivided family units, gifts made by those units to their respective spouses do not qualify for exemption under section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
