HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur v. Sirehmal Nawalakha
Civil Appeal No. 6725 of 1994
[2001] Supp. 1 SCR 615 ·
Gift Tax Act, 1958: sections 2(xii), 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) · Transfer of Property Act, 1882: sections 122 and 123 · Registration Act, 1908: section 17
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · B. N. Kirpal, J. · Shivaraj V. Patil, J.
01 · Facts of the case
By an unregistered declaration dated 10 October 1966, the owner sought to give his wife out-houses attached to the building Deep Shikha. The Gift Tax Officer, appellate authority and Tribunal held that a valid gift had not occurred because section 123 requirements were unmet. The Rajasthan High Court accepted the wider deemed-gift definition under the Gift Tax Act as dispensing with registration; Revenue appealed.
Source: SCR pp. 616-617 / PDF pp. 2-3
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court held that the wider tax definition did not remove the requirement for a legally effective transfer. For the immovable-property surrender or vesting advanced under section 4(1)(c) or (d), registration requirements still applied. Relying on R. Valsala Amma and consistent High Court authority, it explained that the Gift Tax Act had not displaced general property law. The High Court had overlooked the Registration Act.
Source: SCR pp. 617-619 / PDF pp. 3-5
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue’s appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside and the referred question was answered in favour of the appellant. No costs were awarded. The Tribunal’s conclusion that no valid gift of the specified out-houses had been made was sustained.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue on whether this declaration effected a valid gift. This is not a determination of current gift-tax rates or a general conclusion that all transfers without consideration attract tax.
Source: SCR p. 620 / PDF p. 6
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: verify the legal effectiveness of the transfer before analysing a tax deeming provision. Review the property description, executed instrument and applicable registration and attestation requirements. Do not rely only on a declaration or on the breadth of a tax definition to establish transferred title; separately examine any legally applicable exception and the tax law for the relevant period.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR pp. 617-620 / PDF pp. 3-6
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete six-page SCR report; substantive judgment begins at the bottom of PDF p. 2 and ends on p. 6. Assessment year is not stated.
- Full source PDF read. Page references used because the judgment has no numbered paragraphs.
- Source SHA-256 agrees with the supplied consolidated index. Public eSCR mirror; not a certified copy.
- Scope classification: ancillary direct-tax statute; not an Income-tax Act, 1961 merits ruling. No 1961/2025 statutory mapping inferred.
Statutory scope
The Court applied the Gift Tax Act, 1958 and general property/registration law. Current taxation of gifts, exemptions and the Income-tax Act, 2025 are not determined.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-09. Subsequent treatment has not been comprehensively verified. No current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.