<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (11) TMI 233 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66165</link>
    <description>A partner&#039;s transfer of personal assets into a firm is treated as a transfer, but the consideration is the partner&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:34:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 233 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66165</link>
      <description>A partner&#039;s transfer of personal assets into a firm is treated as a transfer, but the consideration is the partner&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66165</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>