| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1979 SLG 818 1979 SLD 818 (1979) 116 ITR 96 |
Madhya Pradesh High Court
MISC. CIVIL CASE Nos. 132 AND 133 OF 1976, JANUARY 30, 1978
G.L. OZA AND P.D. MULYE, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MISC. CIVIL CASE Nos. 132 AND 133 OF 1976, JANUARY 30, 1978
G.L. OZA AND P.D. MULYE, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Maharaja Bahadursingh Kasliwal
v.
Controller of Estate Duty
Law:
Section:
Section 9, read with section 27 of Estate Duty Act, 1953 – Gifts within a certain period before death – Pursuant to a partition of bigger HUF, ‘SH' his wife and their son ‘R' got a one-third share each – ‘R' also got from his parents substantial jewellery and valuables – Later another partition among ‘R', his wife ‘PK' and their five sons resulted in each one of them getting a one-seventh share in one-third share of ‘R' in ancestral properties as also in jewellery and valuables – According to revenue difference between value of property actually given to ‘PK' (R's wife) and her one-seventh share in total assets must be deemed to be a gift by ‘PK' to other members of family and said amount should be added to value of property which passed on death of ‘PK' – Whether a partition in a HUF can not be considered either as ‘disposition' or ‘conveyance' or ‘assignment' or ‘settlement' or ‘delivery' or ‘payment' or ‘alienation' within meaning of those words in section 2(xxiv) of Gift-tax Act, 1958 and as such this would not amount to gifts under partition deed – Held, yes – Whether, therefore, difference between value of 1/7th shares of properties to which deceased ‘PK' was entitled on family partition and share which she actually received, was not a ‘gift' includible under provisions of section 9, read with section 27 – Held, yes Section 14 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 – Policies kept up for a donee – Deceased ‘PK' had assigned or nominated nine life insurance policies in R's favour – Appellate Controller held that one-seventh portion of policies in respect of which premium was paid by HUF funds was deemed to pass under section 14 – Whether when policies are nominated in favour of a particular person, value of policies would be property of that person and not of HUF from where premiums are paid – Held, yes – Whether, therefore, in view of fact that in deceased's policies there was nomination in R's favour, Appellate controller was not right in including 1/7th share of deceased in life insurance polices to principal value of deceased's estate even though premiums were paid out of funds of joint family in which deceased had 1/7th share – Held, yes Section 44 of Estate…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492