9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of s. 64(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 , the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income arising to Smt. Shashikala M. Pandya in respect of the amount of Rs. 15,000 deposited by her in the firm of M/s. Nandlal Company, for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 arose from the assets transferred indirectly to her by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i M. K. Pandya, to their respective wives, Smt. Leelavati M. Pandya and Smt. Shashikala M. Pandya, for the purpose of section 64(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The facts giving rise to this reference have been set out in some detail in Income-tax Reference No. 31 of 1973 and hence there is no need to recapitulate the same in detail here. This reference relates to the assessment years 1967- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be cross-gifts before the ITO and no dispute was raised on this point before the higher authorities. Mr. Pandit, the learned counsel for the assessee, has fairly conceded that this finding of the ITO has not been disputed either before the AAC or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In view of this, it is clear that the said sum of Rs. 15,000 deposited by Smt. Shashikala M. Pandya with the firm of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come realised by the wife was income indirectly received in respect of the transfer of cash directly made by the assessee. We may mention here that the provisions of s. 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, are in pari materia with the provisions of s. 64(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, with which we are concerned in this case. In Bhaichand Jivraj Muchhala v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 385, it has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
