Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Commissioner Of Gift-Tax vs Late M. Sankaran Nair (By Legal Heir P.V. ... on 19 November, 1971 cites

Commissioner Of Gift Tax. Kerala vs Gheevarghese. Travancore Timbers ... on 20 September, 1971

The terms of annexure "A" are almost identical with the document interpreted by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. P. Geevarghese, Travancore Timbers & Products, Kottayam. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is not entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. We answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - A N Grover - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala vs Malayalam Plantation Ltd on 10 April, 1964

"Section 5(1)(xiv) makes it quite clear that in order to earn the exemption the assessee should prove that the transformation of his proprietary business into a partnership concern and the induction of his two daughters as the owners of a 1/8th share in the assets of that partnership was made bona fide for the purpose of that business. The expression 'for the purpose' has come up for consideration in connection with Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the corresponding provision in England and in the Income-tax Act, 1961. As pointed, out by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., [1964] 53 I.T.R. 140; [1964] 7 S.C.R. 693 (S.C.) the expression 'for the purpose of the business' is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning profits' and may include measures for the preservation of the business and for the protection of its assets and property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 356 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Gift-Tax vs R. Narasimhan Potti on 9 August, 1971

10. The terms of the partnership deed show that Sankaran Nair was only 53 years old and he was continuing as the managing partner of the partnership and apart from making the adult son as a junior partner, all his other minor children were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The mere statement that the partnership was formed to ensure continuing of the business is not sufficient for Claiming the exemption. In the case before us the test of commercial expediency is also not satisfied. As we had indicated in I.T.R. No. 14 of 1969 Commissioner of Gift-tax v. R. Narasimhan Potti [1972] 83 I.T.R. 296 (Ker.) the burden to make out the grounds for claiming the exemption is on the assessee. Except producing the partnership deed the assessee did not adduce any evidence to prove the grounds for the formation of the partnership. To us it appears that the real motive behind the partnership is to benefit the children of the assessee. Section 5(1)(xiv) has no application to such cases.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - K K Mathew - Full Document
1