9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (11) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share. She had gifted 1,000 shares. She, therefore, valued the gift at Rs. 1,39,000. However, she got wise and on October 28, 1968, filed a revised return showing the value of shares at Rs. 104.30 per share. The reduction of the value per share was sought to be supported on the basis that there had been issue of bonus shares by the company and that the company had also paid dividend out of the general reserves of the company and if the value of the bonus shares as well as the amount that had been withdrawn for the purpose of dividend are taken into account, the value of the shares would have gone down to Rs. 104.30 per share. This submission of the assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal. The method of valuation is provided by section 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the gift is ascertained assuming that the real position is ascertainable. That is the method which the Tribunal has attempted to adopt. It has taken note of, no doubt, as we have stated already, the payment of dividend by the company as also the issue of bonus shares. The complaint by counsel on behalf of the revenue is that the profits made by the company during the year April 1, 1967, to March 31, 1968, had not been taken note of by the Tribunal. Counsel for the revenue also brought to our notice the fact that the balance-sheet of the company as on March 31, 1968, had taken into account the prosperity of the company and had valued the shares at Rs. 156 per share. If, therefore, there has been payment of dividend and issue of bonus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of the gift deed will have to be ascertained. This is often a difficult task. In given cases, therefore, the value shown in the existing balance-sheet as on the date of the gift can be taken to be the market value. In view of the restrictions regarding the transfer of the shares in a private limited company, depreciation from the value so fixed may have to be allowed. We have dealt with the matter in our judgment pronounced today in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. Venu Srinivasan [1978] 112 ITR 771 (Mad). The Tribunal has not considered the aspects which have to be considered. So, following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Greaves Cotton Co. Ltd.[1968] 68 ITR 200 and Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
