Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1983 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1983 (10) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in assessing capital gains.
2. Applicability of section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in determining tax liability on a property transfer.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act:
The case involved a co-owner of property in Madras, where the property was sold for Rs. 5,00,000, and the market value was Rs. 4,00,000. The Income-tax Officer invoked section 52(2) to determine capital gains based on the fair market value inherited from the co-owner's father. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that section 52(2) was not applicable due to lack of proof of undervaluation. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing precedents like Sundaram Industries (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 243. The High Court concurred, emphasizing the need for actual understatement to invoke section 52(2) and referenced previous judgments supporting this interpretation. The court also mentioned similar cases where section 52(2) was deemed inapplicable due to lack of understatement.

2. Applicability of Section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act:
Regarding section 47(iii), the Tribunal held that as the property transfer was treated as a gift under the Gift-tax Act, it could not be taxed as capital gains under sections 45 and 52 of the Income-tax Act. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that section 47(iii) applies only to actual gifts, not deemed gifts. Citing CIT v. Bharani Pictures [1981] 129 ITR 244, the court highlighted that the section pertains to transfers and not deemed transfers. Referring to previous cases with similar issues, the court answered in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the legislative intent to differentiate between actual and deemed transfers under section 47(iii).

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the interpretation of section 52(2) but differed on the applicability of section 47(iii), ruling in favor of the Revenue. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, precedents, and legislative intent guiding the assessment of capital gains and tax liability on property transfers under the Income-tax Act.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates