Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Jun 09, 2008
Google



Business
Published on Mondays

Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | NXg | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |

Business

Printer Friendly Page Send this Article to a Friend

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Anomaly in the definition of relatives

I am surprised that in the list of relatives to whom I can make a gift, nephews and nieces are excluded. I can make a gift to my husband’s parents, his brothers, their wives, his sister and their husbands who are related to me only by marriage. My nieces and nephews are my blood relations. What is the rationale behind this omission? I can overcome this problem by making a gift to my brothers and sisters and they in turn make a gift to their children. It is akin to reach a destination by a circuitous route, when a shorter route is possible. You could probably have this anomaly corrected by concerned authorities.

The reader Pankajam Sitharam of Srirangam is right in pointing out that Explanation to Sec. 56(2)(v)/ (vi) has a long list, which will include distant relatives, gift to whom will not attract tax liability for them. But gift to nearer relatives like children of a brother or a sister cannot be read into the exception, which is certainly an anomaly to be corrected by including lineal descendant or ascendant of not only individual or the spouse of the individual, but also others specified in item (i) to (iv) by combining entries (v) and (vi) to read “any lineal descendant or ascendant or spouse of the individual and the persons specified in (i) to (iv)”.

There is another anomaly in the section, which charges not only an individual but also a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in respect of gifts from non-relatives. But exemption is only for gifts from relatives of the individual. Unless the individual referred to in the Explanation includes karta and/ or members of the HUF, no HUF receiving gift may be able to avoid liability as no donor can satisfy the definition of relative, since HUF, being a group entity, definition of relatives in relation to individual can have no application.

The word ‘karta’ of HUF should have been treated on a par with individual. Though this omission in drafting the provision has been pointed out more than once in these columns, it has elicited no response.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail



Business

Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | NXg | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |

Comments to : thehindu@vsnl.com   Copyright © 2008, The Hindu
Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu