1982 (2) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ift involved as per s. 4(1)(a) of the GT Act. One of the concerned transaction was sale of jewellery worth Rs. 5,69,400 on 5th Jan., 1976 by the assessee to 12 private limited companies who are undisputedly found to the wholly owned subsidiary companies of the assessee. In fact, the sale price of the jewellery was paid by the purchasing companies by issuing fully paid equity shares of the value of Rs. 100 each. According to the GTO, the market value of the jewellery sold was Rs. 13,91,350 and therefore, there was a deemed gift of Rs. 8,21,950 which he brought to tax. The second concerned transaction was assessee's contribution of the shares received from the subsidiary 12 companies at the book value of Rs. 5,69,400 and of jewellery of Rs. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e said property termed 'capital contribution' is with the transfer at the relevant time and there is no transfer or gift. He further erred in cancelling the gift-tax assessment." We may mention here that the assessee's appeal is totally directed against the CGT(A) holding the firm M/s Unique Associates to be illusory, etc. 3. We will deal firstly with the Revenue's ground about deemed gift of Rs.8,21,950 on the sale of jewellery to 12 wholly subsidiary companies. The reasoning of CGT (A) is contained in para 4 of his order. Shri K.C. Patel in addition to the reasons given by the CGT (A) relied upon a decision of Ahmedabad Bench 'A' of the Tribunal in M/s Kalpana, Ahmedabad, I.T.A. No. 1868/Ahd/1979, order dt. 2nd May 1981. He invited ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a transfer when a partner contributes his property in kind as contribution to the capital of his firm and following that view, the view of the CGT (A) is erroneous. Shri K.C. Patel submitted that the issue should be decided in accordance with the provisions of GT Act, such as, s. 2 (xii) and s. 2 (xxiv). He submitted that there were also other legal arguments to show that there was no inadequacy of consideration to attract the provisions of s. 4(1)(A) of the GT Act. Taking note of rival submissions, we consider it appropriate to set aside the findings of the CGT (A) on this issue and restore it to his file for fresh disposal after taking note of the Gujarat High Court decision in (1981) 24 CTR (Guj) 184 : (1981) 131 ITR 42 (Guj), under the ....