<?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>1987 (11) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25030</link>
    <description>Non-disclosure of a transaction specifically required in the prescribed gift-tax return, including release or surrender of debts, amounted to failure to disclose material facts and justified reopening under section 16(1)(a). The surrender of the debt was also taxable as a deemed gift under section 4(1)(c) because the transaction was found not bona fide; bona fides require a real and genuine transaction made openly, without concealment or subterfuge. The Tribunal&#039;s factual findings that the surrender was an afterthought and caused diminution of one property with corresponding benefit to another were binding in reference proceedings. Both questions were answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:39:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25030</link>
      <description>Non-disclosure of a transaction specifically required in the prescribed gift-tax return, including release or surrender of debts, amounted to failure to disclose material facts and justified reopening under section 16(1)(a). The surrender of the debt was also taxable as a deemed gift under section 4(1)(c) because the transaction was found not bona fide; bona fides require a real and genuine transaction made openly, without concealment or subterfuge. The Tribunal&#039;s factual findings that the surrender was an afterthought and caused diminution of one property with corresponding benefit to another were binding in reference proceedings. Both questions were answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>