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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the gift made in Kashmir by a non-resident Indian to a resident donee was a colourable device to avoid gift-tax and whether exemption under section 5(1)(ii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 was available.
Analysis: The gift was made by a non-resident Indian who was ordinarily resident in Dubai and came to Kashmir before issuing the cheque. The statutory exemption under section 5(1)(ii) covered gifts of movable property situate outside the territorial extent of the Act by persons not ordinarily resident in India. The transaction therefore fell within the exempting provision. The Court further held that lawful tax planning within the framework of the statute does not become tax evasion merely because the assessee structures the transaction to obtain a legal exemption. The later exposition in Azadi Bachao Andolan was applied to reject the broader reading of McDowell urged by the Revenue.
Conclusion: The transaction was not a colourable device to avoid tax, and the assessee was entitled to the statutory exemption; the Revenue's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory conditions for exemption are satisfied, a transaction arranged to obtain that exemption is not a colourable device or tax evasion merely because it reduces tax liability.