Income Tax : The Income Tax Act, 2025 expressly includes maternal as well as paternal lineal ascendants and descendants in the definition of re...
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 : 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 Surat remanded a case involving a Rs.30 lakh gift treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal allow...
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 : 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...
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.
In the present case, the evidence in the form of confirmatory letters, deed of gifts etc. were found during the course of search. The authorities on examination of the confirmatory letters and surrounding circumstances reached a prima facie view that the gifts were not genuine. A notice dated 27.06.1996 under Section 158BC of the Act was accordingly issued.
Assessee had received a gift of Rs. 22,76,750/-in U.S. dollars from an NRI, N.Mohan and the assessee had filed two confirmation letters, one in December 2006 and another on 10-07-2007 given by the donor stating that he had gifted the above amount to the assessee, that the assessee is his close relative, that he is a man of means owning a software company of a net worth of US $ 25 million, that he had gifted during the year 2002-03 Rs. 2.00 crores to rebuild a government school,
The burden is on the assessees to show that the amount received by purported gift(s) from the two donors was a gift in the legal sense. Assessees have not led evidence to show whether the alleged donors had adequate funds in their respective accounts to make these purported gift(s) in Singapore Dollars, which is almost running into more than five lakhs.
There is also force in the submissions of the counsel for the assessee that prior to introduction of S. 56(2)(vii) by the Finance Act, 2009, w.e.f. 1st Oct., 2009, gifts in kind were outside the purview of s. 56(2)(v) or (vi).
On going through the records, we find that an important query was raised by the Department as to whether these two donors had the financial capacity to make the gift(s) in favour of the assessees herein. This query has not at all been answered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’, for short].
The assessee’s argument of having established his bona fides in view of the money being deposited in his regular bank account would also be to no avail. Does the assessee mean to imply that he has some other unaccounted bank accounts as well, in which the amount could have been deposited? To pay the tax, legitimately due, and to recover the same, is the bounded duty of the citizen and the State respectively. In view of the foregoing, the application of section 69A is confirmed in the instant case by the revenue and, accordingly, the assessee’s ground is dismissed.
In regard to jewellery found on person and in the bedroom of Smt. S.H. Khorakiwala, it was stated before the Assessing Officer that the same was received at the time of her marriage. The Assessing Officer accepted the confirmation of mother but the confirmation of NRI gifts from relatives was not accepted. He observed that whether they had purchased the jewellery abroad and gifted to Smt. Samina H. Khorakiwala in which case the customs clearance receipt should have been filed.
The issue for consideration before is whether the gift received by the assessee is genuine or not? As per the AO, gift of such a substantial amount was not justified to a nonrelative/ no blood relation and the creditworthiness of the donor is not adequate. The CIT(A) held that, in fact, the Assessing Officer has in his remand report clearly stated that “The donor has confirmed in his statement the fact of giving gift to the appellant during the year under consideration.
