9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two questions which are said to arise out of the order dated June 5, 1986, passed by the Tribunal : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals), that the notice issued under section 13(2) of the Gift-tax Act, was beyond time and, therefore, all proceedings are invalid in law ? 2. Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered as having been transferred to the firm and each of the partners had 1/3rd share in the same. The Gift-tax Officer issued a notice on September 29, 1983 to the assessee on the view that property to the extent of Rs. 5,27,200 had been gifted by the assessee to his two sons who had been taken as partners in that firm and after allowing the exemption of Rs. 5,000, gift-tax was levied on the sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harthbhai and Kartikeya V. Sarabhai [1985] 156 ITR 509, no gift-tax liability could be imposed on the assessee. The Revenue moved an application to the Tribunal for referring the aforesaid questions for the consideration of this court. The Tribunal rejected the said application and held that since the matter had been examined by the Tribunal on merits also and the matter was covered by the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion did not deal with assessment to gift-tax. On the matter of gift-tax, Shri Singhal has invited our attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court in CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal [1987] 166 ITR 124 and CGT v. Dr. George Kuruvilla [1970] 77 ITR 746. Shri Singhal has also placed reliance on the decision of this court in D. B. Gift-tax Reference No. 35 of 1981, decided on July 19, 1989 (CGT v. Kishan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
