9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the value of taxable gift at Rs.29,180. In the said return of income, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 5(1)(ii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in relation to a sum of Rs.1 lakh gifted by him at Srinagar. The say of the assessee was that as the gift had taken place in the State of Jammu and Kashmir it fell outside the scope of the Gift-tax Act by virtue of the provisions of section 5(1)(ii) of the Act. Some undisputed facts are: that the assessee had transferred a sum of Rs.1,05,000 from his bank account at Ahmedabad to the savings bank account with the State Bank of Maharashtra, Srinagar Branch. The amount was withdrawn in Srinagar and handed over to the donee. The assessee produced a ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi, learned counsel for the Revenue. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee. The provisions of the Act as are relevant to the controversy at hand are: "Short title, extent and commencement.-. . . (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir." "5. Exemption in respect of certain gifts. - (1) Gift-tax shall not be charged under this Act in respect of gifts made by any person- . . . (i) of immovable property situate outside the territories to which this Act extends; (ii) of movable property situate outside the said territories unless the person- (a) being an individual, is a citizen of India and is ordinarily resident in the said territories, or (b) not being an individua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... troverted. The Tribunal in para. 4 of its order has specifically recorded the contention raised on behalf of the asses see to the effect that the donor in this case is a person who is a resident but not ordinarily resident for the purpose of income-tax as well as the Gift-tax Act. On behalf of the Revenue, this fact was not controverted before the Tribunal. While dealing with the provisions of the Act in para. 7.1 of its order, the Tribunal has stated that "the provisions of the Act are not to extend to Jammu and Kashmir in respect of an individual who is a citizen of India and is resident but not ordinarily resident in the taxable territories". The Tribunal could have worded this finding more accurately. However, in the facts of the case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
