Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)Section 269D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Sarabhai M. Chemicals Private Ltd. And ... vs P.N. Mittal, Competent Authority, ... on 5 February, 1980
Ltd. v. P. N. Mittal (supra), Tube Mill (India) (P.)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs T.V. Suresh Chandran And Ors. on 29 March, 1979
In this respect, the transaction under consideration is different from the transaction in the case before the Kerala High Court in T. V. Suresh Chandran (supra) where identifiable parts of the transferred property were given to the different transferees. Hence this is only one transfer of one property purchased jointly by the six transferees. They have come together for the purpose of purchasing the property and, therefore, would form a single body, whether it be called association of persons or a body of individuals.
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
In this connection we have to take into account the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 7 Taxman 13. It has been held in connection with the interpretation of section 52(2) of the Act that understatement of the consideration in respect of the property transferred was one of the necessary conditions and that the onus of proving understatement, i.e., that the impugned assessee had received something over and above what is stated to be the consideration, was on the revenue. In the absence of such material evidence pointing to an understatement of the consideration, it has been held that the mere fact that the fair market value of the property was in excess of the consideration stated in the document would not enable the revenue to bring to tax the difference between the fair market value and the cost of acquisition of the capital asset. this decision in respect of the provisions of section 52(2) would have relevance in respect of the provisions of section 269C, especially clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1). It is necessary for the competent authority to form belief on rational, relevant and cogent material that the transferor had an object of reducing or evading the tax on the income arising from the transaction in question. In order to entertain this belief, we consider that there must be some material before the competent authority which would indicate that the consideration received by the transferor is more in fact than the consideration stated in the document. Without evidence to this effect there will be no basis in fact for a belief that the transferor entertained an object of tax evasion. Similar would be the position in respect of the transferee under clause (b) which refers not only to evasion of income-tax but also to evasion of wealth-tax. It seems to be contemplated by this particular clause that the transferee, by not accounting for the entire consideration paid in the document, is seeking to keep out of assessment the part of his income, that is not so accounted from the liability to both income-tax and the wealth-tax. Even for this there must be some material before the competent authority to show that something more than the stated consideration in the document has passed between the transacting parities. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the absence of any material indicating such a position there was no basis for the competent authority to entertain the belief that there was an object of tax evasion either on the part of the transferor or on the part of the transferee. The requirements of section 269C cannot, therefore, be considered to have been fully satisfied. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings under section 269D by the IAC (Aqn.) cannot be considered to have been fully satisfied. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings under section 269D by the IAC (Aqn.) cannot be considered to have been validly made. On this ground the order of the IAC (Aqn.) is cancelled as one without the requisite jurisdiction.
Section 269 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Madho Properties Ltd. on 12 September, 1980
and CIT v. Madho Properties Ltd. (1981) 131 ITR 380 (CAl.). It has been held that the four requirements under section 269C for initiating the proceedings are not disjunctive but conjunctive in respect of three of them, the fourth being an alternative to the last of the three other requirements. these requirements are that the fair market value of the immovable property must exceed Rs. 25,000, that the apparent consideration for the transfer should be less than the fair market value of the property and that the consideration for the transfer has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer, with one of the two objects of tax evasion enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 269C. Clause (a) relates to the reduction or evasion of the liability to pat tax under the Act in respect of any income arising from the transfer, while clause (b) deals with the possibility of evasion both under the Income-tax Act and under the Wealth-tax Act on the part of the transferee. It has been held that the first two conditions and one or there other of the last two conditions must be satisfied in order to validly initiate action under section 269D. In the instant case, it can be said that the fist two conditions are satisfied. The fair market value of the property is higher than the sum of Rs. 25,000 stipulated in the section. It may also be said that the fair market value of the property is more than the apparent consideration. Nevertheless it cannot be said that there was any valid basis for the competent authority to entertain the belief regarding the object of tax evasion either by the transferor or by the transferee or by both of them. It is clear from the report of the Inspector and the order passed by the competent authority in such report that the competent authority has merely, on the basis of the disparity between the fair market value and the stated consideration in the document come to the conclusion that either of the two positions given in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 269C are satisfied.