Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Gift-Tax vs C. Satyanarayanamurthy. on 27 March, 1964

Bhupatiraju Narasimha Raju vs The Commissioner Of Gift Tax, Andhra ... on 16 April, 1965

Clauses (xii) and (xxiv) of Section 2 were construed by their Lordships, Chandra Reddy, C. J. and Kumarayya, J. in Commr. of Gift Tax v. Satyanarayanamurthy, and it was held that the definition of 'transfer of property' in the Act is of wider import than that contained in the Transfer of Property Act. Unlike the Transfer of Property Act, the definition of 'Gift' in Section 2 Clause (xii) does not require acceptance by the donee. The definition of 'transfer of property' in Clause (xxiv) extends the ordinary meaning of that expression, which is limited to the passing of one person's interest in property to another person. The mode of transfer is not stipulated nor the consequences of non-acceptance by the donee or non-compliance with the modes of transfer required by the general law.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Cherukuri Eswaramma vs Controller Of Estate Duty. on 28 June, 1967

Mr. Kondaiah, just as the learned counsel for the revenue in the Madras case, has cited the Bench decision of this court in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. C. Satyanarayanamurthy for a contrary proposition, viz., that a transaction as defined in section 2(xxiv)(d) amounts to a transfer and is a gift as envisaged in section 4(a). It may be stated that in that case what was in fact held was that where an individual converts his self-acquired property into joint family property, there is a decrease in the value of the individuals property and enhancement of the value of the property of the Hindu undivided family, which is a different person. Such transaction, it was held, fell within the purview of section 2(xxiv)(d) and would constitute a gift. This case certainly was not one dealing with the partition of the joint family property. The basis of the decision was stated by Chandra Reddi C.J., to be that the individual by conversion of his self-acquired properties into joint family properties (that is, in favour of the joint Hindu family which under section 2(xviii) is a person) has transferred the properties. In other words, there was a transaction which was between two persons, the individual on the one hand and the Hindu joint family on the other. At page 360, he said :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bhupathiraju Narasimharaju vs Commissioner Of Gift-Tax, Andhra ... on 16 April, 1965

Clauses (xii) and (xxiv) of section 2 were construed by their Lordships, Chandra Reddy C.J. and Kumarayya J. in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. Satyanarayanamurthy, and it was held that the definition of "transfer of property" in the Act is of wider import than that contained in the Transfer of Property Act. Unlike the Transfer of Property Act, the definition of "gift" in section 2, clause (xii), does not require acceptance by the donee. The definition of "transfer of property" in clause (xxiv) extends the ordinary meaning of that expression, which is limited to the passing of one persons interest in property to another person. The mode of transfer is not stipulated nor the consequences of non-acceptance by the donee or non-compliance with the mode of transfer required by the general law.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Gift-Tax vs N.S. Getti Chettiar on 10 December, 1965

23. Mr. V. Balasubrahmanian, learned Counselfor the Revenue, relied on a decision reported in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. G. Satyanarayanamurthy (1965) 1 I.T.J. 76 : (1965) 1 An. W.R. 69 : (1965) 56 I.T.R. 353 where the Andhr a Pradesh High Court held that the transaction in question was a transfer of property within the terms of Section 2(xxiv)(d) and amounted to a gift as envisaged in Section 2(xii) and Section 4(a) of the Gift-tax Act. In the case cited the manager of a joint Hindu family threw his self-acquisitions into the common stock. The question arose whether the throwing of these self-acquisitions into the common stock is a transfer so as to attract the provisions of the Gift-tax Act. The Court held that by the conversion of the self-acquired property into a joint family property there was a decrease in the value of the property of the manager, while it enhanced the value of the property of the joint family, and that, as the Hindu joint family answered the description of any other person contemplated under the Act, the transaction fell within the purview of Sub-clause (d) of Clause (xxiv) of Section 2. This decision is not helpful in deciding the question whether subsequent to a separation in status the process of division by metes and bounds in transfer of property.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 18 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Commissioner Of Gift-Tax, Madras vs N. S. Getti Chetttiar. on 10 December, 1965

Mr. V. Balasubrahmanyan, learned counsel for the revenue, relied on a decision reported as Commissioner of Gift-tax v. C. Satyanarayanamurthy 1, where the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the transaction in the question was a transfer of property within the terms of section 2 (xxiv)(d) and amounted to a gift as envisaged in section 2(xii) and section 4(a) of the Gift-tax Act. In the case cited, the manager of a joint Hindu family threw his self-acquisitons into the common stock. The question arose where the throwing of these self-acquisitions into the common stock is a transfer so as to attract the provisions of the Gift-tax Act. The court held that by the conversion of the self-acquired property into a joint family property, there was a decrease in the value of the property of the manager, while it enhanced the value of the property of the joint family, and that, as the Hindu joint family answered the description of any other person contemplated under the Act, the transaction fell within the purview of sub-clause (d) of clause (xxiv) of section 2. This decision is not helpful in deciding the question whether subsequent to a separation in state the proses of division by metes and bounds is transfer of property. Section 4 of the Gift-tax Act includes certain transfer of property, which are deemed to be gift under section 4. Section 4(a) provides that when a property is transferred for an inadequate consideration, the amount by which the market value of the properties exceeds the value of the considerations is deemed to be a gift. Under clause (b) of the section 4, when a property is transferred for consideration, which has not passed either in full or in part, the amount of the consideration, which has not passed, is deemed to be a gift. Under clause (c) of section 4, when there is a release, discharge, surrender, forfeiture or abandonment of any debt, contract or other actionable claim or of any interest in property by any person, the value of the release, discharge surrender, forfeiture or abandonment, to the extent to which it has not been bound to the satisfaction of the Gift-tax Officer to have been bona fide, is deemed to be a gift made by the person responsible for the release, discharge, surrender, forfeiture of abandonment. Clause (d) of section 4 provides that, when a person absolutely entitled to the property causes the same to the vested in himself and any other person jointly without adequate consideration and when such other person makes an appropriation out of the said property, the amount of the appropriation used for the benefit of the person making the appropriation or for the benefit of any other person shall be deemed to be a gift. Clauses (c) and (d) can have no application. Clause (c) relates to a release, discharge, surrender, forfeiture or abandonment of any debt, contract or other actionable claim or of any interest in property by any person, and the value of such transactions, which is found to the satisfaction of the Gift-tax Officer to be not bona fide, shall be deemed to be a gift. The transaction as such are not taxable but only to the extent to which it has been found to be not bona fide. In this case, it is not disputed that the partition is bona fide, and, even if the transaction is considered to be a release or abandonment of interest in the property, as there is no lack of bona fides, the transaction is not liable to tax. The transaction, therefore, will not fall under this clause. Clause (d) relates to a person, who is absolutely entitled to the property, vesting in himself and another person jointly without adequate consideration and such other person making an appropriation of it. The transaction cannot fall under this clause either.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Gift Tax, Lucknow vs Jagdish Saran on 3 October, 1969

In Commissioner of Gift Tax v. C. Satyanarayanamurthy, 56 ITR 353 = (AIR 1965 Andh Pra 95), it was explained by Andhra Pradesh High Court that the definition of transfer in the Gift Tax Act is of wider import than the definition contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It was, therefore, held that where an individual converts his self-acquired property into joint family property, there is a decrease in the value of the individual's property and enhancement of the value of the property of the Hindu undivided family, which is a different person. Such a transaction falls within the purview of Section 2(xxiv)(d), and constitutes gift.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bhagirathi Saha vs Gift-Tax Officer And Another. on 29 January, 1971

In a reply dated 28th of October, 1968 (annexure "F"), the petitioner denied his liability. By annexure "G" dated October 29, 1968, the revenue relied upon Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Gift-tax v. Satyanarayanamurthy, in support of its conclusion that the separate property so thrown into the hotchpot was a gift. This writ application has been filed for quashing the impugned notices and orders by annexures, "A", "C", "D" and "F", and for issuing a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties not to proceed with the assessment of the petitioner under the Act.
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next