<?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>2002 (5) TMI 42 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12662</link>
    <description>Unquoted equity shares gifted by the assessee had to be valued under the statutory break-up method in rule 10(2) of the Gift-tax Rules, 1958, because that rule governed restrictive shares in a private company and there was no material showing that value could not be ascertained from the company&#039;s assets. The Tribunal was therefore wrong to apply the yield method, and the issue was decided for the Revenue. A gift structured with a right of revocation after a specified period was also held valid, because the Gift-tax Act expressly contemplated that arrangement and the fact that it was tax-effective did not make it void. That issue was decided for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 18:20:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 42 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12662</link>
      <description>Unquoted equity shares gifted by the assessee had to be valued under the statutory break-up method in rule 10(2) of the Gift-tax Rules, 1958, because that rule governed restrictive shares in a private company and there was no material showing that value could not be ascertained from the company&#039;s assets. The Tribunal was therefore wrong to apply the yield method, and the issue was decided for the Revenue. A gift structured with a right of revocation after a specified period was also held valid, because the Gift-tax Act expressly contemplated that arrangement and the fact that it was tax-effective did not make it void. That issue was decided for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>