TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the value of the rubber estate for gift-tax purposes had to be recomputed by applying the valuation guidelines contained in CBDT Circular No. 326 dated 6 February 1982; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift-tax Act in respect of the alleged gift to the wife of one of the partners.
Issue (i): Whether the value of the rubber estate for gift-tax purposes had to be recomputed by applying the valuation guidelines contained in CBDT Circular No. 326 dated 6 February 1982.
Analysis: The asset had to be valued at market value for both gift-tax and wealth-tax purposes. The circular relied upon contained guidelines for computing market value, and there was no reason to exclude those guidelines merely because the assessment was under the gift-tax law. As no working had been placed to show the value under the circular, the appropriate course was to direct recomputation by the Gift-tax Officer in accordance with paragraph 4 of the circular.
Conclusion: The valuation was required to be recomputed on the basis of the circular, and if the recomputed value was lower than the value returned, the returned value was to be adopted. This was in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift-tax Act in respect of the alleged gift to the wife of one of the partners.
Analysis: The exemption could be granted only if the assessee established that the gift was made to his wife. The record did not show that the surrendered share represented a gift to the wife, and the deed did not specify that her share had come out of the relinquished interest. The claim therefore failed for want of proof.
Conclusion: The exemption claim was rejected and this issue was decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The valuation dispute was sent back for recomputation under the CBDT circular, while the claim for spouse-related exemption failed, leaving the assessee with only partial relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where market value is the basis of assessment, valuation guidelines intended for that purpose may be applied in gift-tax proceedings as well, but an exemption claim must be strictly proved by showing that the gift was in fact made to the person for whom exemption is sought.
TaxTMI 
