Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.42 seconds)
G. Ethirajulu vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 June, 1971 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Shri Prem Bhai Parekh And Ors on 20 April, 1970

6. The undisputed facts in the case are that the assessee gifted certain assets to his minor son, who invested the same in the partnership firm of M/s. Ranganatha Silk House. The minor son of the assessee was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The short question that arises on these admitted facts is whether the income that fell to the share of the minor, who was admitted to the benefits of the partnership in M/s. Ranganatha Silk House, directly or indirectly arose out of the assets transferred to the minor by his father, the assessee. This question was directly in issue in the latter case decided by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Prem Bhai Parekh.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 96 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Culcutta vs Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel on 9 November, 1964

"The connection between the gifts mentioned earlier and the income in question is a remote one. The income of the minors arose as a result of their admission to the benefits of the partnership. It is true that they were admitted to the benefits of the partnership, because of the contribution made by them. But there is no nexus between the transfer of the assets and the income in question. It cannot be said that the income arose directly or Indirectly from the transfer of the assets referred to earlier. Section 16(3) of the Act created an artificial income. That section must receive strict construction as observed by this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel, . In our judgment before an income can be held to come within the ambit of Section 16(3), it must be proved to have arisen--directly or indirectly--from a transfer of assets made by the assessee in favour of his wife or minor children. The connection between the transfer of assets and the income must be proximate. The income in question must arise as a result of the transfer and not in some manner connected with it."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 89 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1