9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , this estate become the asset of a firm, viz., M/s Excel Movies later named as Navoday. This firm consisted of six partner with equal shares. Of the original owner Sri M.C. Punnoose and Smt. M.C. Thankamma completely surrendered their one-fourth share each in favour of the other partner, Smt. Annamma Antony and Smt. Aliamma Mani Chacko continued in the partnership with a reduced share of one-sixt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of property at Rs. 9,000 per acre. The value of the estate in all came to Rs. 5,23,280. The AAC upheld this valuation by the GTO. Hence these appeals by the assessee here. 2. The main ground of appeal in all these appeals that has been argued before us is regarding the valuation of the estate. It is urged that the value of Rs. 9,000 per acre estimated is not justified. It is submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returned by the assessee. 3. The deptl. rep. pointed out that the valuation according to this circular which is only in respect of the wealth-tax assessment would be less than the value returned by the assessee here for gift-tax assessment. It is also submitted by Deptl. Rep. that this circular issued for wealth-tax purposes may not be relevant for gift-tax assessments. 4. We consider that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value of the lands in question on the basis of paragraph 4 of the circular. If such recompilation is less than the value returned by the assessees here then the GTO will adopt the value taken by the assessees here for the purpose of the return, namely, Rs. 3,53,536. He will modify the assessment accordingly. 5. In GTA No. 5 (Coch)/82, in the appeal filed by Shri M.C. Punnoose, one other point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. The assessee has not been able to establish that a gift has been made by him to this wife in order to attract the provisions of s. 5(1)(viii). This point is, therefore, decided against the assessee in GTA No. 5 (Coch)/82. 6. In the result, GTA Nos. 4,6 and 7 (Coch)/82 are treated as allowed while the appeal in GTA No. 5 (Coch)/82 is treated as partly allowed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
