Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.51 seconds)
Documents citing Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust vs Commissioner Of Gift Tax Kerala on 25 April, 2003

Govindan vs Commissioner Of Gift Tax on 11 June, 2004

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that in so far as the decision in Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust v. Commissioner of Gift Tax, 261 ITR 279, is concerned, the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the fact that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was contributed by the incoming partner. He tried to distinguish the present case on the ground that there has been no fresh contribution. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that it is not necessary for the new partner to contribute.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A K Basheer - Full Document

T. Muralidhar Rao vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 21 September, 2004

In Narayana v. State of Kerala, , the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 4 of the Electricity Act, 1910 (as amended in 1958) which contemplates that in the matter of revocation of a licence, the Board should be consulted by the Government after the licensee's explanation has been received and the Board should make its recommendation only after considering it, observed that the order of revocation in breach of any one of those conditions, will undoubtedly be void. "The clause 'if in its opinion the public interest so required' is also a condition precedent. On a successful showing that the order of revocation has been made without the Government applying its mind to the aspect of public interest or without forming an honest opinion on that aspect, it will, we have no doubt, be void. The phrase 'after consulting the State Electricity Board' is sandwiched between the clause 'if in its opinion the public interest so requires' and clauses (a) to (d). In this context it appears to us that consultation with the Board is also a condition precedent for making the order of revocation. Accordingly, the breach of this condition precedent should also entail the same consequence as the breach of the other conditions referred to earlier".
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 111 - Cited by 12 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Ratilal vs Gift on 16 June, 2012

3) Learned counsel Mr.S.N. Soparkar for the appellant submitted that the issue is no longer res-integra. Under very similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust Vs. Commissioner of Gift-Tax, reported in 261 I.T.R, page No.279, reversed the decision of the High Court and ruled in favour of the assessee by holding that such reconstitution of a firm would not result into any deemed gift. The question which the Apex Court considered was "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in holding that even though the reconstitution of the firm resulted in the reduction of the share of profit of the assessee-trust, there was no gift exigible to tax in its hands?". This question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in reversing the decision of the Tribunal. The question is answered in favour of the appellants-assessees and against the Revenue. The decision of the Tribunal is set-aside. The Appeal is allowed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document
1