9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions of s. 64(1) of the IT Act, 1961 regarding gifts made by two individuals and the applicability of cross-gifts in tax assessment. Analysis: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh was presented with a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, regarding the interpretation of provisions of cls. (iv) and (v) of s. 64(1) of the Act concerning gifts made by two individuals. The Tribunal found that there were cross-gifts between the two individuals, Shri Chandanmal and Shri Poonamchand, and invoked the aforementioned provisions to include the income from these gifts in their total income. The Tribunal's decision was challenged through appeals by the assesses, leading to this reference to the High Court for opinion. During the assessment proceedings, it was revealed that Shri Chandanmal had made a gift of Rs. 25,000, and Shri Poonamchand had reciprocated with an equal amount within a short period. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) concluded that these transactions constituted cross-gifts, leading to the invocation of cls. (iv) and (v) of s. 64(1) to include the income from these gifts in the assesses' total income. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) and the Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision, emphasizing the interconnected nature of the transactions to evade tax implications. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Supreme Court rulings in CIT, Bombay City-II vs. Keshavji Morarji and CIT Madras vs. C.M. Kothari, supporting the view that the gifts were interconnected and designed to circumvent tax implications. The High Court, after considering the arguments presented, concurred with the Tribunal's findings. The Court noted that the transfers by the assesses were part of the same transaction, indicating a deliberate attempt to avoid tax consequences under the relevant provisions of the IT Act. Ultimately, the High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, supporting the Tribunal's decision that the provisions of cls. (iv) and (v) of s. 64(1) of the Act were applicable to the gifts made by the assesses. The Court upheld the Tribunal's ruling, emphasizing the interconnected nature of the transactions and the circumvention of tax implications. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in this reference, bringing the matter to a conclusion.
|
