Gift-tax valuation of partner asset transfers turns on comparable consideration, not notional capital credits.

A partner's transfer of personal assets into a firm is treated as a transfer, but the consideration is the partner's profit share and entitlement to net partnership assets, which is not readily monetisable. The text states that the amendment to section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 changed the valuation method under Schedule II, but did not remove the need to compare the value transferred with the consideration received. On a comparable break-up valuation, the consideration was not shown to be inadequate, and the subsequent conversion of the firm into a company under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956 involved statutory vesting rather than a tax-evading device. No deemed gift arose on that analysis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the difference between the face value and break-up value of shares introduced as capital into a partnership firm, and the subsequent issue of shares on conversion of the firm into a company, constituted a deemed gift under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.

Analysis: The transfer of personal assets by a partner to a firm does involve a transfer, but the consideration received is the partner's right to profits and to a share in the net partnership assets on dissolution or retirement. That consideration is not capable of present monetary evaluation and the credit entry in the partner's capital account is only notional. The amendment to section 4(1)(a) requiring valuation under Schedule II changed the mode of valuing the property transferred, but did not dispense with the statutory requirement that the consideration received must still be ascertained and compared with that value. On the facts, the assessee's shares in the earlier company and the shares later received in the successor company had to be valued on a comparable break-up basis; on such valuation, the consideration was not shown to be inadequate. The conversion of the firm into a company under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956 also involved statutory vesting of assets under sections 574 and 575, so the allegation of a transfer made only to evade tax was not established. The principle against colourable devices was therefore not attracted.

Conclusion: No deemed gift arose under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958; the addition could not be sustained and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The assessments based on deemed gift were unsustainable and were cancelled.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the consideration for transfer of a partner's capital asset into a firm, or the consideration received on conversion of the firm into a company, is not shown to be inadequate on a comparable valuation basis, section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 is not attracted.

---