9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 85,000 being the amount gifted by the deceased to his sons, wife, daughter and grandsons was not liable to be included under s. 10 of the E.D. Act ? " One Sri M. A. Ramanujam Pillai was running a rice mill in his individual capacity. In 1956-57, a sum of Rs. 85,000 was gifted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1957, and on the same day, the proprietary concern was converted into a partnership by making the donees as partners along with the deceased. He also found that gift tax has been levied in respect of the gift relating to Rs. 85,000. He therefore, did not agree with the Assistant Controller that s. 10 should apply. In this view, he deleted the sum of Rs. 85,000 from the value of the estate of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondition that the gifted amounts should be available for the carrying on of the business of the partnership, that though the deceased had the benefit of the gifted amounts, the benefit should be traced to his capacity as a partner and not to his capacity as a donor and that, therefore, since the benefit is not referable in any way to the gift and is, in fact, unconnected with the gift, s. 10 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kamlavati [1979] 120 ITR 456 (SC) it is no doubt true, as contended by the Revenue, that this court has held in CED v. Suryanarayanan [1978] 114 ITR 599 (Mad) that the enjoyment of the gifted amount by the donor even as a partner will be sufficient to attract s. 10 and the said decision proceeds on the basis that the factual possession and enjoyment by the donor of the gift amount is sufficient t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm, such benefit to the donor is referable to his membership of the partnership and it is not a benefit referable in any way to the gift but it is unconnected therewith. These decisions in CED v. Ramachandra Gounder [1973] 88 ITR 448 (SC), CED v. Viswanathan [1976] 105 ITR 653 (SC) and. CED v. Kamlavati [1979] 120 ITR 456 (SC) have uniformly laid down the principle that unless the benefit the do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
