M/S.SREE NARAYANA CHANDRIKA TRUST vs. COMMNR. OF GIFT TAX, KERALA

C.A. No.-001427-001427 - 2001Supreme Court25 April 20035 pages
For Respondent: B. V. BALARAM DAS
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The appellant, Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust, a charitable institution, was a partner in Chandrika Enterprises. By a partnership deed dated 1.4.1980, it was inducted with a 45% share in profits. On 1.10.1982, the partnership was reconstituted, inducting a new partner, Smt. M.U. Indira, who contributed Rs. 25,000. This reconstitution led to a reshuffling of profit/loss shares, reducing the appellant's share from 45% to 30%. The Gift Tax Officer viewed this reduction as a gift, issuing a notice to the appellant. The Assessing Officer, by an order dated 31.12.1985, held that the relinquishment of 15% share by the appellant amounted to a gift, valuing it at Rs. 3,17,400 and, after exemptions, determined a taxable gift of Rs. 23,12,400, leading to a tax demand of Rs. 59,600. The Commissioner of Gift Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appellant's appeal.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that while it may be possible to say that the relinquishment of a profit/loss share by a partner in favour of an inducted partner could amount to a transfer, it could not be accepted that it was for inadequate consideration so as to amount to a taxable gift under Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift Tax Act. The Court relied on its earlier decision in D.C. Shah v. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Karnataka, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the incoming partner, M.U. Indira, contributed Rs. 25,000 towards capital, and the value of her services was not disputed by the Revenue. The mere fact that a partner's share decreased and another's increased upon reconstitution does not infer a gift. The onus is on the Revenue to establish a gift, which it failed to discharge. The contribution of capital and the obligation to work for the firm's common advantage constituted adequate consideration for the reallocation of profit shares. Therefore, even assuming a transfer occurred, it was not for inadequate consideration. The Court answered question 1 in favour of the assessee and found it unnecessary to answer question 2. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that even though the reconstitution of the firm resulted in the reduction of the share of profit of the assessee-trust, there was no gift exigible to tax in its hands? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that even though there was a transfer by the assessee in favour of the incoming partner and existing partners, the consideration for the transfer could not be evaluated during the subsistence of the partnership and so the question of adequacy or inadequacy of consideration could not be quantified and so there was no gift exigible to tax? Assessee's arguments: The appellant contended that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Sunil Siddharthbhai, the value of the partnership share cannot be ascertained as on the date of induction of the new partner, and since the adequacy or inadequacy of consideration cannot be quantified, it cannot be exigible to tax. Furthermore, it argued that reconstitution of a partnership with capital contribution by a new partner and readjustment of existing partners' shares does not result in a taxable gift, as it is obligatory for all partners to participate in the business, which, along with the incoming partner's contribution, constitutes adequate consideration. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that the reduction of the appellant's share amounted to a gift, and that the principle laid down in B.T. Patil case was applicable, implying a transfer for inadequate consideration. The Revenue also argued that the incoming partner was given her share only due to the reduction of the appellant's share.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 16,Section 5(2),Section 4(1)(a),Section 26(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1427 of 2001 PETITIONER: SREE NARAYANA CHANDRIKA TRUST RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX KERALA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/2003 BENCH: BRIJESH KUMAR & B.N. SRIKRISHNA

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2003 (3) SCR 958 The Judgment of the Court was delivered ’by SRIKRISHNA, J. The appellant is a charitable institution registered as a public trust which spends its receipts on charitable purposes and is partner in a firm known as ’Chandrika Enterprises’. By a partnership deed dated 1.4.1980 the appellant was inducted into the said partnership upon contribution of Rs. 1,000 to the total capital of Rs 1,61,000 and given a share of 45% in the profit of the said firm. There were in all 8 partners apart from the appellant and the partnership deed recited the contribution of each partner towards the capital of the firm as also the varying share of profit/loss of each partner. With effect from 1.10.1982 the partnership was reconstituted by a deed dated 1.10.1982. A new partner, Smt. M.U.

Indira, was inducted into the partnership. Consequent upon the induction of said new partner, who contributed a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 16

All 51 judgments and leading authorities on Section 16 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →