9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the Tribunal. Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of cls. (iv) and (v) of s. 64(1) of the IT Act, 1961, were applicable to the gifts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000 to Smt. Motanbai, wife of Chandanmal. (b) ₹ 5,000 to Shri Rajendrakumar (minor), son of Chandanmal. (c) ₹ 10,000 to Shri Ramanlal (minor), son of Chandanmal. Total ₹ 25,000 In view of these facts, the ITO concluded that there were cross-gifts to the extent of ₹ 17,000 (excluding the gift of ₹ 8,000 by Shri Chandanmal to Shrimati Shardabai) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chand, in turn, gifted equivalent amount to the wife and minor children of Shri Chandanmal within a period of two months. The intention of the donors in these gifts can be nothing but to evade the implications of cls. (iv) and (v) of s. 64(1) of the IT Act " The Tribunal relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT, Bombay City-II vs. Keshavji Morarji and Anr (1967) 66 ITR 142 (SC) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations of cls. (iv) and (v) of s. 64(1) of the Act. In view of the finding, no question of law really arises for our consideration. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in holding that the provisions of cls. (iv) and (v) of s. 64(1) of the Act were applicable to the gifts made by the assessee. 4. our answer to the question is, therefore, in the affirmative and in favour of the Department. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
