Shah Rukh Khan (King Khan), a famous actor of Bollywood, had given a loan of Rs. 2,28,88,530.00 to his wife Gauri Khan in A.Y. 2006-07. Gauri Khan has purchased, out of the said loan, a residential property and jewellery. The A.O. has accepted the Wealth Tax Return filed by Shah Rukh Khan passing an order U/s. 16(3) of Wealth Tax Act. But the Audit party has raised a querry u/s. 17 of Act on 15-03-2011 to club the valuation of residential property of Rs. 1,65,95,000.00 and jewellery of Rs. 70,00,658.00 purchased by Gauri Khan. In assessment order, A.O. has also pointed out that the assessee could purchase the said wealth in his own name but he deliberately avoided the same. Thus, it was indirect transfer of assets within the meaning of provision of section 4(1)(a)(i) of Act and the said amount was clubbed in the taxable wealth of Shah Rukh Khan. The same has also been affirmed by CIT (A).

The Tribunal held that cash loan was not mentioned in section 4(1)(a)(i) at all. Definition of assets as given in section 2(ea) of the act does not include cash loan or advances, whether interest bearing or interest free.

Contention of the revenue that interest free loan was given to acquire asset and therefore u/s. 4(1)(a)(i), assets had been transferred. On this, the ITAT had remarked “we are not agreeing with the AO because there is no transfer of assets, rather an asset has been purchased in the form of residential house, after taking interest free loans”.

As regards the argument of revenue as “why a person shall lend money to his wife to purchase house and jewellery or not purchased in his own name remained unexplained”. Against this the Tribunal stated “we are not satisfied with these observations, because this is their family matter and the decision for the purchase of property, that is, in whose name, is upto them and not the revenue”.

The Tribunal also pointed out that clubbing in husband’s wealth cannot be done, where wife earn income and file her own return. Moreover, if she is paying loan amount (Rs. 4,50,400.00 upto A.Y. 2008-09, out of loan taken of Rs. 2,28,88,530.00….. !!!!!), the clubbing does not make sense.

Conclusion:

Is it tax planning, tax avoidance or tax evasion ?????

  1. If Shah Rukh Khan purchased the said property and jewellery in his own name, it would be his own wealth and taxable under the Act.
  2. Shah Rukh Khan has given Loans and advances to his wife Gauri Khan. The said advances does not fall within the provision of section 2(ea) of the Act.
  3. While filing the return of wealth of Gauri Khan, she may be taken exempted wealth regarding one premises of residential property within the provision of section 5(vi) of the Act.
  4. As per section 4(1)(a)(i) “Deemed Assets” means any assets transferred by one spouse to another. But, in this case, no asset has been transferred by Shah Rukh Khan to Gauri Khan, but given loans. Hence it is not taxable as Deemed Assets in the hands of him.
  5. In Gauri Khan Return, taxable value of jewellery may be taken as exempted by claiming loans taken to acquire the said asset, from Shah Rukh Khan and claimed as “Debt Owed”.

(Author: CA KAUSHIK JAGAD, B.Com., F.C.A., Bhavnagar. Email : ca.kpjagad@gmail.com)

No Wealth tax on Assets Purchased by Wife out of loan from Husband- Shah Rukh khan gets relief

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (28086)
Type : Articles (17843)
Tags : Wealth Tax (101) Wealth-tax Act (60)

0 responses to “Whether it is a tax planning or tax avoidance or tax evasion ??????”

  1. LKA says:

    It’s a good tax planning – neither tax avoidance nor tax evasion. Income from such assets would not be clubbed on the same premises as in the WT Case.

  2. rachh ramesh says:

    that is ok but loan given to wife dose not attrect in her husbund wealth tex?

  3. motichand gupta says:

    very well analysis done.

  4. Ca Kalpesh Korat says:

    Excellent!!

  5. RJ says:

    Is this tax planning ?

  6. VENKAT says:

    how many digits are there in that amount????

  7. Bishal koirala says:

    Can be their any clubing effect if wife of him earned a money from the house so purchased or ornament through any other means?

  8. Anil says:

    It is definitely tax evasion, done by finding loop holes in the law. Now to take care of such transfers- if the dept brings in a rule saying- loan given is part of wealth for wealth tax purposes and any loan given @ interest rate- which is less than the base rate of SBI, the difference will be treated as deemed income, and apply it retrospectively- will it be a corrective step or retrograde tax system.

  9. J.R.Krishnan says:

    will the Revenue make a reference to the High Court against the decision of ITAT.
    Kudos to the tax adviser of King Khan for this method of evading tax.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *