Case Details

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

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…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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