Income Tax : SEO Description: Explains which gifts qualify for exemption based on the statutory definition of “relative” and why not all fa...
Fema / RBI : Learn the FEMA rules governing gifts of money, shares, and property to non-residents, including documentation, valuation, and repa...
Income Tax : Understand the tax treatment of monetary, movable, and immovable gifts received by individuals and HUFs. Learn the ₹50,000 thres...
Income Tax : Summary of taxability of gifts under the Income Tax Act for individuals and HUFs—covering monetary, movable, and immovable gifts...
Income Tax : Gifts received from specified relatives are fully exempt from income tax under Section 56(2)(x). Learn the definition of 'relative...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that a gift deed alone cannot establish legitimacy under Section 68. It directed fresh scrutiny of the donor’s...
Goods and Services Tax : Gifts up to a value of Rs 50,000/- per year by an employer to his employee are outside the ambit of GST. However, gifts of value m...
Income Tax : The existing provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) provide that where any immovable property is received for a consideration whi...
CA, CS, CMA : Suggestions on Draft Rule 11UA of Income-tax Rules, 1962 Accepted: I am happy to inform you that our suggestions have found favour...
Income Tax : Actress Priyanka Chopra and photographer Atul Kasbekar will pay income tax on some undisclosed transactions. Priyanka will pay tax...
Income Tax : The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order taxing Rs. 10 lakh received from HUF, emphasizing verification of the gift and HUF status ...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh ruled that cash gifts from close relatives, supported by affidavits and audited accounts, cannot be treated as une...
Income Tax : ITAT Agra deleted additions on gifts received from real sisters, holding that when identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness are...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi set aside an unexplained cash addition of ₹3.5 Lakh, ruling in favor of the assessee who received a gift from her adu...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata deletes Rs.8.5 lakh addition for cash gift against Abdus Sattar. Tribunal ruled that the donor's capacity must be jud...
Income Tax : CBDT issued Income Tax Circular No. 04/2022 on 15th March 2022 and explained all provisions related to deduction of Tax At Source ...
Corporate Law : The depository participants have been permitted to operate in GIFT-IFSC in terms of the applicable provisions under SEBI (Internat...
Income Tax : Amendment in Rule 11U and 11UA omitting reference to the term accountant, thereby permitting only merchant bankers to determine th...
Fema / RBI : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 46 of the Foreign Exchange Man...
CA Umesh Sharma Arjuna (Fictional Character): Krishna, 7th February to 14th February is celebrated as Valentine Week all over the World. This is celebrated by giving gifts and wishes and for that the markets were ready. This market of love gifts is called as “Loveonomics”. Please explain the provisions of Income Tax regarding these Love […]
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of DCIT V/s Soni Sonu Mirchandani has held that indexed cost of acquisition to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the gifted assets.
Our last week’s article on Tax Implications of receiving Gifts invited a lot of feedback from our readers, and to be honest we received a total of 108 queries on multifarious aspects of receiving gifts. This was highest feedback we received so far on any of our articles. We have replied to most of them; […]
As regards the second gound raised before the Tribunal with regard to the addition of Rs. 6,72,9 10/-, that issue was decided in favour of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 2005-06 by the CIT (Appeals) and it has not been questioned by the revenue before the Tribunal. Therefore, following the said decision, the Tribunal confirmed the view taken by the CIT (Appeals). Even on that aspect, no interference is called for.
In the instant case, as can be noted from the findings of the Tribunal, Assessing Officer had not summoned any of the donors. However, it had issued the letters under section 133(6) of the Act. Assessing Officer had also called for confirmation letters which were received by it. The assessee also had furnished all other requisite documents like copies of DD, gift deed, copy of PAN cards, copy of acknowledgment of returns of the donors along with computation and balance sheet. It also found that all the donors were assessed to tax except one who was based at USA. On thus having found identity of the donors so also creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction having been established, Tribunal did not accept the say of the Revenue that the gifts were bogus.
In the present case, the income tax return of the donor namely Dr. Chitranjan Jain and his wife Nisha Jain was filed before the Assessing Authority. No finding has been recorded by Assessing Authority or the CIT Appeal or the ITAT that return filed by Dr. Chitranjan Jain and the Nisha Jain were fake, fabricated or false one. Once genuineness of return is not in dispute then there appears to be no reason to disbelieve that the amount was paid by Dr. Chitranjan Jain.
Devang K. Shah Finance (No. 2) Act , 2009 introduced taxation of certain transactions involving transfer of any property, including immovable property as income from other sources in the hands of the recipient, being Individuals / HUFs. The rationale behind it was to tax anything which is received in kind having ‘money’s worth’, which was […]
In the absence of any material to show that said amount was sent by the assessee’s mother and brothers from Singapore, the claim of the assessee does not merit any consideration. Thus the amount of Rs. 78 lakhs treated as unexplained investment under section 69 and assessable as undisclosed income for the block period stands confirmed.
It is possible, on an interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act to answer this question either way, but unfortunately the High Court did not even notice this provision of the Act. Of course, the submission of learned counsel for the assessee is that on an interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination, that the assessee had made a gift of 14,000 bonus shares to the transferee in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1989-90.
Suggestions on Draft Rule 11UA of Income-tax Rules, 1962 Accepted: I am happy to inform you that our suggestions have found favour with the Government, which we had submitted in response to the CBDT’s request on the draft Rule 11UA for determination of fair market value for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) of Income-tax Act, 1961.
