| III. Useful Case Laws:
1. Satya Nand Munjal Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Civil Appeal No. 3914/2010, Date of Order: 22.01.2013, Supreme Court of India Taxability of a revocable transfer as deemed gift u/s 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act The fundamental question is whether there was in fact a gift of 14,000 bonus shares made by the assessee to the transferee. The answer to this question lies in s. 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act which provides that “where 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 found to the satisfaction of the AO to have been bona fide, shall be deemed to be a gift made by the person responsible for the release, discharge, surrender, forfeiture or abandonment“. On facts, the assessee had made a valid revocable gift of 6000 equity shares in the company on 20.2.1982 to the transferee. The only event that took place in AY 1989-90 was the revocation of the gift by the assessee on 15.6.1988. The question whether the revocation of the gift of the original shares in AY 1989-90 constitutes a gift of the bonus shares that were allotted to the transferee on 29.09.1982 and 31.05.1986 requires to be answered in the light of Sec. 4(1)(c). The question of applicability of Escorts Farms has to be decided after a finding is reached on the applicability of the first part of s. 4(1)(c) (matter remanded). (Please Click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. Jakson Ltd., ITA 48/2013 ITA No. 49/2013, Judgment delivered on: 29.01.2013, High Court of Delhi Whether the penalty was imposed U/s 271(1)(c ) because of the reason that the deduction claimed under section 80-IB by the respondent-assessee was ultimately allowed at a lower level were valid? Held - that the mere making of a claim which is ultimately held not to be sustainable in law, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of an assessee. In the present appeals it is only that the claims of deduction under Section 80IB have been downscaled. This, by itself, would not mean that it is a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Furthermore, there is no finding in the penalty order as to which part of the income the assessee had concealed and with regard to which particular facet of his income had the assessee provided inaccurate particulars thereof.
(Please Click here for judgment)
| 
New User? 
Subscribe Now