Relative defination u/s 56(2)
YASHPAL RAWAT
(Querist) 21 March 2012
This query is : Resolved
Pls. confirm Nani(Mother's Mother) come under the definaiton of relative U/s 56(2)
Anirudh
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Obviously under I.T. Act, 1961.
Your Nani is a relative u/s. 56(2) in respect of your mother / father (see explanation (v) and (vi) under Section 56 (2)(vi) of the Act.
BUT, as per the said provision, NANI IS NOT A RELATIVE TO YOU.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 21 March 2012
vague query . please state facts clearly
R.K Nanda 
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Query not clear enough to answer.
Sailesh Kumar Shah
(Expert) 21 March 2012
I completely agree with Mr. Aniruddh, if author is asked question under the Income Tax act.
Guest
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Better state your real problem for providing solution rather than putting an academic qurestion about definition of a relative.
Anirudh
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
The interpretation of the 'definition' will not change with the facts of any case. For answering the query in the instant case, one need not know the real problem. It is pure interpretation of the 'definition' and testing whether the 'Nani' is a relative of the querist or not. That's all to it.
Guest
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Dear Anirudh,
Thanks for representing the querist, Mr.Yashpal Rawat. I wonder, as if you were not satisfied with your own reply, as I have neither challenged the definition given by you, nor the section quoted by you. Needless to mention, I did not oppose your reply in any way that could warrant your response or reaction. You have also not mentioned what did you actually find wrong in my reply.
However, from your response, it reveals as if you do not have any objection if this experts forum should become merely a classroom type of forum to reply academic queries of learners. I do not, however, have any objection if you prefer replying such academic queries.
There was some objective in asking about the real problem. The querist is a Manager (Finance & Accounts) in some organisation. Naturally, he is not asking us about his own NANI, but to solve some official problem to settle some claim by some relative of an employee.
That is why I asked him to write the nature or problem, so that he could get correct solution for his problem.
Anirudh
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
The question of myself not satisfied with my own reply does not arise - I really do not know where from you draw such an inference.
Moreover, the querist just sought a clarification which was provided. By succinctly answering the query will not in any manner turn this site into a mere class room.
Again it is you assuming that the querist is trying to solve some official problem. Even if it be so, all that he wants to know to solve the said problem is to know whether in the given situation whether 'Nani' is a relative under Sec.56(2) of the IT Act. That's all. This query can be answered without getting into any other real problem, so long as the querist has not approached with such a problem in the LCI.
My comments are not based on whether you opposed my reply or approved it. If you assume that one can react only if one's reply is opposed or commented upon, naturally you are mistaken.
I have clearly indicated as to what I found wrong in your reply. I had clearly mentioned that to solve the query, one need not ask for the real problem, as the answer to the query does not depend upon any real or imaginary problem.
Guest
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Dear Anirudh,
Probably you forget that I did not address my reply to you or to call for your comments.
Secondly, you also seem to forget that if the querist knew about section 56 of the IT Act and had there been any definition of relatives in that section, as mentioned by you, he would automaticlly have knowen the definition of relatives with reference to the said section 56 of the Income Tax Act.
3rdly, with particular reference to your reply, "your Nani is a relative u/s. 56(2) in respect of your mother / father (see explanation (v) and (vi) under Section 56 (2)(vi) of the Act," the said section 56 of IT Act does not provide any such definition of reltives.
4th, Neither any such section 56(2)(vi) provides any narrow sense in IT Act, nor such explanations (v) & (vi) below sec.56 confirms your interpretation, as against your reply.
If any such information exists, as against 3rd and 4th points above, you may kindly like to provide the source of information to enhance my knowledge also, including the edition of the book, if taken from any book. I shall be quite obliged to you in that case.
Guest
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Dear Shailesh,
In view of the above discussions and with reference to your reply, you may also like to correct me please, if I am wrong. Your reply may also enhance my knowledge appropriately.
Anirudh
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
Para 1 - I never claimed that you addressed me (there was no occasion for you at all to address me since I am not the querist) or you called for my comments. I do not know what you want to say by saying so. Do you mean to say that unless addressed or called for, one comment on the reply provided by you? If that be so, probably you have omitted to see my earlier remark: "If you assume that one can react only if one's reply is opposed or commented upon, naturally you are mistaken."
Second para : Your assumption is unwarranted. Even after knowing the exact provision viz., Sec. 56(2)(e) about the definition of 'family', still to arrive at the conclusion the querist can seek and in fact had approached us for clarification. That is what he did. To assume otherwise is totally unwarranted especially the query posed by the querist is staring at all of us. It is not my imagination!
Third para & Fourth Para: Please refer to Taxmann's Income Tax Act (As amended by Finance Act, 2010) 54th Edition, pages 1.349 to 1.351.
Guest
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Dear Anirudh,
As you clearly admitted by saying, "I never claimed that you addressed me (there was no occasion for you at all to address me since I am not the querist) or you called for my comments," what actually was your intention to address me specifically with your comments, when I asked the querist to state his real problem?
Did not you aim at intentionally criticise me for the purpose of letting me down in the eyes of the querist as well as our fellow brethren in this forum?
About your reply to 2nd para, when the term "relative" is defined in querist's own referred section and he did not also clearly specify what was his doubt about the heirarchy mentioned therein, where your presumption stands that the querist "approached us for clarification" to "arrive at the conclusion?"
Even if your presumption is considered as correct, your interpretation about "NANI" itself goes wrong. If you feel that your interpretation is correct, please let me know, what is your interpretation by the follwing term given in explanations below the section, whether NANI falls within the scope of the said definition or not, as you have clearly stated, "as per the said provision, NANI IS NOT A RELATIVE TO YOU":
"any lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the individual"
Anirudh
(Expert) 21 March 2012
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
First try to be graceful in admitting your mistake.
You claimed that "4th, Neither any such section 56(2)(vi) provides any narrow sense in IT Act, nor such explanations (v) & (vi) below sec.56 confirms your interpretation, as against your reply."
Now parawise reply to your latest post:
para 1 : I have adequately replied to you in my earlier two posts. I do not want to repeat.
Para 2: It is not my intention to criticise. My intention was to point out how the actual problem is not a must to solve the query. If you feel otherwise, I cannot help. In fact, by persisting with your defence of the indefensible stand, you are only exposing yourself without any aid from my end.
Para 3: If any proof is needed, his further post on the same point in a separate thread fortifies my correct appreciation of the query (it is not presumption as you may prefer to call).
Para 4 : With reference to the provisions quoted by me, now it is your turn to point out how my interpretation about 'NANI' is wrong.
Guest
(Expert) 22 March 2012
Dear Anirudh,
With your over-indulgence in a bid to create a controversy, you have merely exposed yourself overly, as a fellow with full of jealousy, rather than showing yourself as a knowledgeable person.
You proved yourself to be unable to properly interpret the definition of relative as contained in explanations below sec. 56(2).
Needless to emphasize, your uncalled for indulgence to create controversy without any cause on my post was a blunder (not to say of even mistake) on your part when my query was neither addressed to you nor I asked any one to comment on my post.
On the other hand, even on finding your answer to the question to be wrong, I did not prefer to point that out openly on this forum. Through that answer, you merely misinterpreted 'NANI' to be not a relative of the querist so far as sec. 56 of the IT Act is concerned. But, instead of rectifying your own mistake, you preferred to escalte the controversy.
Your posts clearly proved that you deliberately raised controversy merely with the intention to let me down on my asking clarification from the querist, as you targetted me only, but failed to show any such reaction on the posts of S/Shri Sheik, Ajay Sethi and R.K. Nanda, who also sought clarifications from the querist.
It is not a single instance, you have already admitted about your mal-intention to delibertely finding fault by your own statement, "I CONFIRM, MY AIM WAS TO POINT OUT FAULT IN YOUR REPLY," on the following link:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Urgent-help-needed-false-406-and-420-framed-289441.asp
Not as of my mistake, but as of my pretended oversight, I tried to test you further to check whether your intended merely to criticise me or you could realise that there was nothing wrong in asking for any clarification from the querist. BUT YOU FAILED EVEN IN THAT.
So now, since you have already proved your intentions, I feel it my duty to point out where you actually stand in your interpretation about the term relative.
Even your statement, "Even after knowing the exact provision viz., Sec. 56(2)(e) about the definition of 'FAMILY', still to arrive at the conclusion the querist can seek and in fact had approached us for clarification," clearly proves against you that you have not even been able to distinguish between the terms of "relative" and "family," as explanations below section 56(2) does not provide any definition of the term "family".
You also proved to be evasive in providing your interpretation on the term "any lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the individual" which is one of your referred sub-clause of the explanation.
If you want to know where you were wrong in interpretation and whether "NANI" falls within the scope of the term "relative" or not, you may also need to read the aforsaid sub-clause along with with sub-clause (vii), which clearly states, "spouse of the person referred to in clauses (ii) to (vi)."
Anirudh
(Expert) 22 March 2012
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
Let me once again meet you point wise:
YOUR POINT: “With your over-indulgence in a bid to create a controversy, you have merely exposed yourself overly, as a fellow with full of jealousy, rather than showing yourself as a knowledgeable person.”
MY ANSWER: ONLY AFTER CONSCIOUSLY DECIDED TO INDULGE IN, I REGISTERED WITH LCI. THEREFORE, WHETHER IT IS OVER-INDULGENCE, MERE INDULGENCE OR BELOW PAR-INDULGENCE IS QUITE SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION. THEREFORE NO COMMENTS. IF I APPEAR TO YOU TO BE FULL OF JEALOUSY, SO BE IT. YOU SHOULD BE PROUD THAT YOU ARE SUCH AN ENDOWED PERSON THAT SOME ONE IS EVEN JEALOUS ABOUT YOU! YES, YOU MAY LEGITIMATELY FEEL PEEVED, WHICH I FULLY APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND, THAT ONLY A PERSON OF MY LITTLE STATURE IS JEALOUS ABOUT YOU INSTEAD OF BY THOSE WHOM YOU MAY CONSIDER WORTHY!! I can’t help it.
YOUR POINT : Even your statement, "Even after knowing the exact provision viz., Sec. 56(2)(e) about the definition of 'FAMILY', still to arrive at the conclusion the querist can seek and in fact had approached us for clarification," clearly proves against you that you have not even been able to distinguish between the terms of "relative" and "family," as explanations below section 56(2) does not provide any definition of the term "family".
MY ANSWER: YES. I FULLY ADMIT. IT IS A GREAT MISTAKE / SLIP BY ME. I SHOULD HAVE SAID ‘RELATIVE’ AS APPEARING IN Sec. 56(2) INSTEAD OF “FAMILY”. THANKS FOR POINTING OUT. I AM GRATEFUL TO YOU.
YOUR POINT” ”You proved yourself to be unable to properly interpret the definition of relative as contained in explanations below sec. 56(2).”
MY ANSWER: DEAR MR. DHINGRA, I AM REALLY LAUGHING. THIS STATEMENT COMING FROM A PERSON, WHO SAID:
"3rdly, with particular reference to your reply, "your Nani is a relative u/s. 56(2) in respect of your mother / father (see explanation (v) and (vi) under Section 56 (2)(vi) of the Act," the said section 56 of IT Act does not provide any such definition of reltives.
4th, Neither any such section 56(2)(vi) provides any narrow sense in IT Act, nor such explanations (v) & (vi) below sec.56 confirms your interpretation, as against your reply.
If any such information exists, as against 3rd and 4th points above, you may kindly like to provide the source of information to enhance my knowledge also, including the edition of the book, if taken from any book. I shall be quite obliged to you in that case.”
ANY WAY, DOES YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION, RESULTS IN ANY OTHER ANSWER THAN WHAT I PROVIDED? IF SO, PLEASE INDICATE.
YOUR POINT: So now, since you have already proved your intentions, I feel it my duty to point out where you actually stand in your interpretation about the term relative. You also proved to be evasive in providing your interpretation on the term "any lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the individual" which is one of your referred sub-clause of the explanation.
If you want to know where you were wrong in interpretation and whether "NANI" falls within the scope of the term "relative" or not, you may also need to read the aforsaid sub-clause along with with sub-clause (vii), which clearly states, "spouse of the person referred to in clauses (ii) to (vi)."
MY ANSWER: WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT sub-clause (vii), I COULD NOT HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION AT ALL. IN FACT WHILE TYPING (see explanation (v) and (vii)] in my reply JUST ONE (i) HAS MISSED OUT AND THE TEXT REMAINED AS (vi) instead of (vii). IT IS A TYPO. AGAIN THANKS FOR POINTING OUT. IN ANY WAY, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE ULTIMATE ANSWER OF MINE WILL NOT UNDERGO ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.
YOUR POINT: Needless to emphasize, your uncalled for indulgence to create controversy without any cause on my post was a blunder (not to say of even mistake) on your part when my query was neither addressed to you nor I asked any one to comment on my post.
MY ANSWER: I REPLIED TO YOU REPEATEDLY THAT WHETHER YOUR (QUERY) REPLY TO THE POST WAS ADDRESSED TO ME OR NOT IS IMMATERIAL. THE ITEM NEED NOT BE ADDRESSED TO ME SPECIFICALLY, OR MY COMMENT NEED NOT BE SOUGHT SPECIFICALLY TO ENABLE ME TO POINT OUT WHATEVER I WANTED TO POINT OUT. IF THAT IS ‘UNCALLED FOR INDULGENGE’ TO YOU OR ‘CREATING CONTROVERSY; OR A ‘BLUNDER’ SO BE IT. IT IS YOUR SUBJECTIVE VIEW. I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY.
YOUR POINT: On the other hand, even on finding your answer to the question to be wrong, I did not prefer to point that out openly on this forum.
MY ANSWER: IF IT WAS A MISTAKE OF MINE AND IF YOU DID NOT POINT OUT – EITHER OPENLY OR BY WHATEVER MEANS, I CONSIDER THAT YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANY FAVOUR RATHER YOU HAVE DONE A DISFAVOUR NOT ONLY TO ME, BUT TO THE LCI ITSELF. AFTER ALL, THE MISTAKES HAVE TO BE POINTED OUT AND RECTIFIED, TO HELP IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE ANSWERS IN THE LCI. IF YOU ELECT NOT TO DO SO, PLEASE DO NOT EXPECT ME ALSO TO RECIPROCATE.
YOUR POINT: Through that answer, you merely misinterpreted 'NANI' to be not a relative of the querist so far as sec. 56 of the IT Act is concerned. But, instead of rectifying your own mistake, you preferred to escalte the controversy.
MY ANSWER: (i) YOU ARE YET TO INDICATE HOW MY ANSWER THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF Sec.56(2) OF THE I.T. Act, 1961, ‘NANI’ IS NOT A RELATIVE OF THE QUERIST IS WRONG; (ii) BY SAYING SO, DO YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT IN THE GIVEN CONTEXT ‘NANI’ IS THE RELATIVE OF THE QUERIST?
YOUR POINT: But, instead of rectifying your own mistake, you preferred to escalte the controversy.
MY ANSWER: (I) In response to the reply posted by you seeking “real problem for providing solution” I only said “Dear Mr. Dhingra, The interpretation of the 'definition' will not change with the facts of any case. For answering the query in the instant case, one need not know the real problem. It is pure interpretation of the 'definition' and testing whether the 'Nani' is a relative of the querist or not. That's all to it.” . I DO NOT FIND ANY ESCALATION IN THIS FROM MY SIDE. Everything that followed was from your end, and YES, I did answer all your replies to me. Yes, if that is escalation, I can't help it.
YOUR POINT: Your posts clearly proved that you deliberately raised controversy merely with the intention to let me down on my asking clarification from the querist, as you targetted me only, but failed to show any such reaction on the posts of S/Shri Sheik, Ajay Sethi and R.K. Nnda, who also sought clarifications from the querist.
MY ANSWER: The other Experts whom you have mentioned indicated that “vague query”; “query not clear enough to answer” etc. Whereas, you have understood the query by saying “qurestion about definition of a relative” and yet wanted the “real problem to be mentioned to solve the query”. THIS IS THE REASON WHY I HAVE TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT TO SOLVE THE QUERY POSED, “REAL PROBLEM” IS NOT NECESSARY. THAT’S ALL TO IT. NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS.
YOUR POINT: It is not a single instance, you have already admitted about your mal-intention to delibertely finding fault by your own statement, "I CONFIRM, MY AIM WAS TO POINT OUT FAULT IN YOUR REPLY," on the following link:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Urgent-help-needed-false-406-and-420-framed-289441.asp
MY ANSWER: PLEASE GO THROUGH MY ABOVE REPLY. I SAID, “MY AIM WAS TO POINT OUT FAULT IN YOUR REPLY” NOT MY “INTENTION”, much less mal-intention or deliberate fault finding as mentioned by you.
YOUR POINT: Not as of my mistake, but as of my pretended oversight, I tried to test you further to check whether your intended merely to criticise me or you could realise that there was nothing wrong in asking for any clarification from the querist. BUT YOU FAILED EVEN IN THAT.
MY ANSWER: MY ANSWERS/COMMENTS IN LCI ARE CANDID AND FORTHRIGHT UNMINDFUL OF WHETHER ANY ONE IS TESTING ME OR NOT. IF MY SUCH ANSWERS WILL DESERVE ONLY “FAIL” IN YOUR VIEW, I CANNOT COMPLAIN. NOR WILL I EVER.
REGARDS.
YASHPAL RAWAT
(Querist) 22 March 2012
Thanks Mr. Anirudh I agree with you that Nana/Nani of a Grand Son/ Daughter does not come in definition of Relative U/s 56(2) of IT Act, 1961.
So Major Grand Son (Say x) receive any gift from their Nana/Nani so it is not exempted in the hand of X but if Nana/Nani give this gift to Father/mother of X and further Father /Mother give this gift to X so in such case whether it would be exempted in the hand of X.
