2009 (5) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... orders were passed with reference to the assessment years of 1997 -1998, 1998 - 1999, 1999 - 2000 by the first respondent, whereby the tax liability was fixed on the basis of the entries given by the petitioner. Admittedly, no exemption was claimed with respect to the year 1997 - 1998 and at that point of time, the petitioner was having only one building at Madras. Subsequently, during the year 1998 - 1999, the building at Kodaikanal was gifted to the petitioner by the husband, declaring the value of this property as Rs. 2,11,738/- . The petitioner claimed exemption stating that, she was residing in the said building and sought to have the benefit under Section 51 (vi), though the assessing authority found that the actual value of the buil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no "adequate consideration", which according to the senior counsel can only be a 'monetary consideration' and nothing else. Accordingly, it is asserted that the second respondent went wrong in declining the relief sought for. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, with reference to the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that the proposition made from the part of the petitioner is not liable to be accepted, for the reason that the execution of Gift and nature of conveyance were not properly proved by the petitioner. It is also stated that, it was for the petitioner to prove the Gift, so as to have the benefit provided under Section 4 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. Simultaneously in paragraph 2 of the sai....