9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustries Ltd., Madras, and she made a gift of 4,000 shares to individual trusts. In the original assessment made for the assessment year 1974-75, the value of the shares was determined at Rs. 121 per share. The Gift-tax Officer subsequently, on the basis of the Board's circular dated October 29, 1974, came to the conclusion that rule 10(2) of the Gift-tax Rule, 1958, does not permit 15 per cent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the completed assessment. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, following its earlier order in GTO v. Miss Malini Srinivasan (G. T. A. No. 55 (Mds) of 1979, G. T. A. No. 57 (Mds) of 1979 and 58 (Mds) of 1979, dated August 26, 1980), came to the conclusion that the reopening of assessment was invalid. It is this order which is the subject-matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of assessment was not valid in the eye of law. In the instant case, the Gift-tax Officer refused to grant 15 per cent. deduction which was originally granted in the earlier assessment. This court in the case of CGT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 710. held that the provisions of rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules would equally apply for the purpose of valuation of shares for gift-tax and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal and there is no error of law committed by the Appellate Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the reassessment under section 16(1)(b) of the Act was not valid in the eye of law. In fine, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. However, in the circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
