1995 (9) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t effected as a device or ruse to convert the personal asset into money and evade tax on capital gains lies on the Revenue ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not remitting the matter back to the file of the Income-tax Officer to examine whether the transfer was a device or ruse to convert personal asset into money and evade tax on capital gains ? " Admittedly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 was rendered on September 27, 1985, after the order dated March 28, 1985, was made by the Income-tax Officer and after the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax, i.e., during the pendency of that ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and his wife and children or substantially limited to them, whether the personal asset is sold by the partnership firm soon after it is transferred by the assessee to it, whether the partnership firm has no substantial or real business or the record shows that there was no real need for the partnership firm for such capital contribution from the assessee. All these and other pertinent considerations may be taken into regard when the Income-tax Officer enters upon a scrutiny of the transaction, for, in the task of determining whether a transaction is a sham or illusory transaction or a device or ruse, he is entitled to penetrate the veil covering it and ascertain the truth." Admittedly, a ground was taken before the Income-tax Appellate ....