Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing D.C. Shah And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Gift-Tax, Karnataka on 10 December, 1980

Bhuvaneswari Hotels (P) Ltd., Partner ... vs The Gift Tax Officer on 20 June, 2005

The judgement in D C Shah's case 134 ITR 492 came to be appealed to this Court at the instance of revenue. The appeal came to be disposed off by this Court by a judgement in Civil Appeals No. 4551-56 of 1984 on September 25, 1996, wherein it was held: That the share of one partner is decreased and that of another partner correspondingly increased does not lead to the inference (hat the former had gifted the difference to the latter, The profit sharing ratio in a firm can vary for a number of reasons, among them, the ability of the partners to devote time to the business of the firm. The gift of a part of a partner's share to another partner has to be established by relevant evidence. The onus of doing so is on the revenue. It has not been discharged in the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust vs Commissioner Of Gift Tax Kerala on 25 April, 2003

The facts found in the present case are that the incoming partner (M.U. Indira) had contributed Rs. 25,000 towards her share of the capital. The value of her services or usefulness to the firm as partner has not been disputed by the Revenue authorities. As pointed out by this Court in D.C. Shah case (supra) the mere fact that upon reconstitution of the firm the share of one partner decreased and that of another increased cannot lead to the inference that the former had gifted the difference to the incoming partner. There is no other material placed on record by the Revenue to show that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration the obligations of all the partners in the partnership deed dated 1.10.1982, there was inadequate consideration for the reallocation of 12% of the share in favour of the incoming partner. In our view, the contribution of Rs. 25,000 towards the capital together with the obligations undertaken of sincerely and faithfully carrying on the business for common advantage of the firm was adequate consideration for reallocating the share of the profits and giving 12% of the share in favour of the incoming partner M.U. Indira. That C.K.. Jinan was the managing partner and C.N. Purushuthaman was the administrative head, did not take away the obligations of the other partners including those of M.U. Indira which arose generally under the Partnership Act, as well as under the partnership deed dated 1.10.1982.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Mani K.Thomas vs The Commissioner Of Gift Tax on 26 November, 1999

During the course of hearing, the law declared by the Supreme Court in 249 ITR 518 (cited ITR.Nos.6 and 8 of 2000 11 supra) was sought to be relied on from the part of the assessee and reference was made to other verdicts as well. 166 ITR 124 (cited supra) was sought to be relied on by the Revenue. After hearing both the sides, the Apex Court held that the Bench was unable to accept the contention that the transfer was for inadequate consideration so as to amount to a taxable gift within the meaning of Sec.4(1)(a) of the Gift Tax Act. The view expressed by the Bench in D.C.Shah & others v. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Karnataka (134 ITR 492) was relied on and accordingly, a verdict was passed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, virtually allowing the appeal and setting aside the verdict passed by this Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1