Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + SC Income Tax - 2000 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (10) TMI 48 - SUPREME COURTWhether the release by the assessee, who was one of the partners in the firm of 3-Aces, of his rights in the assets of the firm for a consideration of ₹ 3,00,000 when the market value of the assets of the firm in proportion to his share was in excess thereof, did not amount to a gift within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act ? Held that:- The High Court having rightly stated that the decision of Getti Chettiar (1971 (9) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court) which supported the case of the appellant and even the observations made were binding on it, wrongly did not apply the ratio of the said decision to the facts of the case in hand. Further, the High Court committed an error in stating that the said decision had no application to the distribution of the assets as between the partners whose shares inter se are specific and determined at any given point of time and that the said decision had to be read and understood in the light of the subsequent decision of this court in Kantilal Trikamlal's case [1976 (7) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court]. As in the case of the Hindu joint family, the coparceners do not have exclusive rights in any specific property of the family, the property allotted to their shares become specified only on partition ; the same is the position in the case of a partner of a firm. No partner of a firm can claim exclusive or specific right in any specific asset of the property of a firm. Coparceners also have definite share in the Hindu undivided family. So also the partners have definite share in the partnership. In favour of assessee.
|