9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee's son's minor daughter ) 156 3. <?xml:namespace prefix = st2 /> Shri D. D. Khatau (The assessee's son - major) 1 4. Shri K. D. Khatau (The assessee's son - major) 3. It would be thus seen that out of total share holdings of 1,000 shares, 98 shares were held by the assessee's son's son (minor) and the assessee's son's daughter (minor). 4. The WTO held that gift in question to the company was an indirect gift to those two minors as a result of which provisions of sub-clause (v) of section 4(1) (a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 were attracted and said amount was liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee under the said provision. He, accordingly, included ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et with which we are concerned is a sum of Rs. 1,87,000 which has been gifted by the assessee to the company. We shall assume that the transaction resulted in indirect gift to the two minor children of the assessee's son and as such condition No. 2 was satisfied. However, as far as first condition is concerned, it cannot be said to have been satisfied. That condition is that asset in question should be held by the said minor children on the relevant valuation date. It is well settled that a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders. The property held by the company cannot be said to have been held by the sharesholders. Consequently the said amount cannot be said to have been held by the said minor children on the relevant val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her there was indirect transfer to minor children. 8. In this connection sub-clause (vi) is relevant. Under that sub-clause, it is not necessary that the asset in question should be held by the minor children on the relevant valuation date. Even if the asset is held by any other person or an AOP, the asset would be liable to be included provided there was direct or indirect transfer (without consideration) for immediate or deferred benefit of minor children. If the company comes under the connotation of the terms person or an AOP, the said sub-clause would be attracted. However, that sub-clause came in force with effect from 1-4-1985 and as such would not be applicable to the assessment year with which we are concerned. 9. We, according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
