PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
The case pertains to the reopening of assessment and addition u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act regarding the receipt of immovable property as a gift by the petitioner from the brother of the petitioner's father. The assessing officer considered that a nephew is not a relative within the meaning of explanation (e) to the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii), rendering the gift taxable. The High Court held that the plain language of explanation (e) covers a brother or sister of either of the parents as a relative. Since the donor is the brother of the petitioner's father, he is covered under the said clause. The mere non-mention of the word 'nephew' cannot exclude uncles or nephews from the definition of relatives under explanation (e). Consequently, the impugned order and notice were set aside.
The case pertains to the reopening of assessment and addition u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act regarding the receipt of immovable property as a gift by the petitioner from the brother of the petitioner's father. The assessing officer considered that a nephew is not a relative within the meaning of explanation (e) to the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii), rendering the gift taxable. The High Court held that the plain language of explanation (e) covers a brother or sister of either of the parents as a relative. Since the donor is the brother of the petitioner's father, he is covered under the said clause. The mere non-mention of the word 'nephew' cannot exclude uncles or nephews from the definition of relatives under explanation (e). Consequently, the impugned order and notice were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.