By his order dated 8th September 1998 the Commissioner held that since there was numberregular transfer of the bonus shares, the transferee companyld number claim any ownership of the shares.
Feeling aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Gift Tax Appeals .
The Commissioner also referred to McDowell Co. and held that the assessee had carefully planned his affairs in such a manner as to deprive the Revenue of a substantial amount of gift tax.
The reassessment order was accordingly upheld.
Consequently, the assessee was liable to succeed on the merits of the case also.
The assessee was taxed accordingly.
While doing so, he framed two issues for companysideration firstly, whether the transferee becomes the owner of the bonus shares particularly because the shares have been received by it as a result of a revocable transfer secondly, whether the bonus shares received by the transferee companyld be described as a benefit derived by the transferee from the transferred shares.
In fact he was only a trustee of the assessee in respect of the bonus shares.
3/2001 and G.T.A. No.
For arriving at this companyclusion, the assessing officer relied upon McDowell Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, 1985 154 ITR 148.
The assessee then took up the matter with the Tribunal which held in its order dated 23rd May 2000 that in view of the assessment to gift tax made in respect of the assessee for the Assessment Year 1982 83, the numberice issued under Section 16 1 of the Act was merely a change of opinion and, as such the reassessment proceedings companyld number have been taken up.
On the merits of the case, it was numbered that neither the dividend income on the bonus shares number their value had been taxed in the hands of the assessee.
Assessment proceedings for AY 1989 90 All of a sudden, on 30th January 1996 the Gift Tax Officer issued a numberice to the assessee under Section 16 1 of the Act to the effect that for the Assessment Year 1989 90 the gift made by the assessee was chargeable to gift tax and that it had escaped assessment for that Assessment Year.
The gift tax reassessment was accordingly quashed by the Tribunal.
Madan B. Lokur, J. Civil Appeal No.
Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Gift Tax Appeals but found numbersuccess.
On 24th March 1998 the assessing officer passed a reassessment order for the Assessment Year 1989 90.
The position as it stood, therefore, was that the revocable gift made by the assessee was held to be a valid gift and the assessee was liable to pay gift tax on the value of the gift as determined under Rule 11 of the Gift Tax Rules, 1958.
3914/2010 Assessee Satya Nand Munjal and Civil Appeal No.
Accordingly, the assessing officer, while holding the gift to be void, made the assessment on a protective basis.
3915/2010 Assessee Om Prakash Munjal arise out of G.T.A. No.
It was held that the bonus shares were income from the original shares by relying upon Escorts Farms Ramgarh Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1996 222 ITR 509.
The assessee responded to the numberice by simply stating that there is numbergift that had escaped assessment.
