Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 870 1980 SLD 870 (1980) 123 ITR 841
Karnataka High Court
TAX REFERENCE CASE Nos. 147 AND 148 OF 1977 AUGUST 2, 1978
E.S. VENKATARAMAIAH AND M.K. SRINIVASA IYENGAR, JJ.
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy for the Controller. G. Sarangan for the Accountable Parson

Controller of Estate Duty

v.

N. Ramachandra Bhat

Law:

Section:

Section 33, read with sections 7(1), 34 and 39 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Exemptions - Whether Section 33(1)(n) has no relevance to computation of value of interest of deceased in coparcenary property under section 39 - Held, yes - Whether where residential house belongs to a HUF governed by mitakshara, only share of deceased in such house is exempt from estate duty under section 33(1)(n) - Held, yes - Whether for purposes of rate of estate duty, value of share of deceased in such house has to be excluded from value of property passing on his death under section 34(1)(a), but value of shares of all lineal descendants of deceased in coparcenary property including residential house has to be aggregated under section 34(1)(c) without any reference to any exemption under section 33(1)(n) - Held, yes - Whether in joint family governed by Madras School of Mitakshara law, wife of karta has no share in family property during his lifetime - Held, yes - Whether right of maintenance is a personal right, which can be enforced against property of family by creation of a charge on it, but is not proprietary in character and claim by itself does not amount to a charge until it is fixed by a Court or agreement between woman and holder of estate, and in absence of any such plea that there was decree of a Court or agreement, no allowance could be made in lieu of maintenance right of wife - Held, yes FACTS 'N', who was governed by the Madras School of Mitakshara law, died leaving behind him, his widow and two sons. Before the Asstt. CED, it was contended by the accountable person that only 1/4th interest in the joint family property passed on the death of 'N' on the basis that the wife of the deceased also had a share in the joint family property. The Asstt. CED rejected the said contention. On appeal, the Appellate CED also rejected said contention. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the accountable person raised a further contention that by virtue of section 33(1)(n), the value of the interest of the lineal descendants in the residential house in which the deceased was living, was also not liable to be included for the purpose of rate under section 34(1)(c). The…
🔒
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