Cyber Knowledge Products
 You are not Logged in

Journal TR

image

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL REPORT

 
Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1157 (Ahd-Trib)

 

Gyanchand M. Bardia v. ITO

 

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Income from other sources --Transfer of property without consideration Gift received by individual from HUF----Gift received by assessee from HUF was not covered under section 56(2)(vii)(c), 2nd proviso (a) read with Explanation (e) thereto defining a "relative" of an individual receipient not including an HUF as a donor, therefore, same was taxable. --Assessee had received Rs. 1 crore from his own HUF and claimed the said amount to be a gift without consideration covered under section 56(2)(vii). Held: Gift received by assessee from HUF was not covered under section 56(2)(vii)(c), 2nd proviso (a) read with Explanation (e) thereto defining a "relative" of an individual receipient not including an HUF as a donor, therefore, same was taxable.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 56(2)(vii)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. : 2012-13



IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH

S.S. GODARA, JM & AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Gyanchand M. Bardia v. ITO

ITA No. 1072/Ahd/2016

21 February, 2018 A.Y. 2012-13

Assessee Dismissed

Citations:

Keshavji Ravji And Co. v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 1 (SC)

Smt. Tarulata Shyam And Others v. CIT, West Bengal (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC)

Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT, Bombay (1975) 101 ITR 776 (SC)

CIT, Madhya Pradesh And Bhopal v. Sodra Devi (1957) 32 ITR 615 (SC)

CIT v. BR. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP)

DCIT-17 (2), Mumbai v. Ateev V. Gala ITA No. 1906/Mum/2014, April 19, 2017

Shri Hemal D. Shah v. DCIT -25 (3) ITA No.2627/Mum/2015, March 8, 2017

Harshadbhai Dahyalal Vaidhya (HUF) v. ITO (2013) 155 TTJ (Ahd) 71

Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia v. ITO, Rajkot Wd. 5 (4), Morbi ITA Nos. 583 (Rjt.) of 2007 & 601 (Rjt.) of 2008, May 17, 2011

Assessee by: Rajesh C. Shah, A.R.

Revenue by: V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R.

ORDER

S.S. Godara, Judicial Member

This assessees appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner (Appeals) -4, Ahmedabads order dated 14-3-2016, in case no. Commissioner (Appeals) -4/467/wd- 1 (2) (2) /15-16 (Old appeal no.: Commissioner (Appeals) 10/640/wd-1 (2) (2) /14-15), affirming assessing officers action making addition of Rs. 1,02,00,000 qua gift received from HUF, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. We advert to the relevant facts qua assessees sole substantive grievance qua the gift in question amounting to Rs. 1,02,00,000 received from HUF added by both the lower authorities under section 68 of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact that the eponymous HUF in question consists of assessee-karta, his wife Rajkumari and son Rakesh. The assessee has received the sum of Rs. 1,02,00,000 by way of banking channel only. He claimed the said amount to be a gift without consideration covered under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 2009 with effect from 1-10-2009. Case records suggest that the assessing officer went into a detailed discussion in assessment order dated 11-2-2015 to reject assessees claim t

**** PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL REPORT  ****