Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 956 1980 SLD 956 (1980) 123 ITR 104
Madras High Court
28943
SETHURAMAN AND BALASUBRAMANIYAN, JJ.
J. Jayaraman and Nalini Chidambaram for the Applicant. M. Raghavan for the
Respondent

Controller of Estate Duty

v.

Dr. Ida Bella Soscuddar

Law:

Section:

Section 21, read with section 3(1)(d), of the estate duty Act, 1953 - Foreign property Movable property held by deceased in USA charged to estate duty taking her domicile of choice to be India as against American domicile of origin Tribunal deleted inclusion of foreign movable assets Whether tribunal right in holding that deceased had retained her domicile origin of USA exempting charge of her foreign assets and department had not discharged onus of proof that deceased had abandoned her domicile of origin in favour of Indian domicile Held, on facts, no Facts The deceased was born in North Arcot District (India) on 19-12-1870. The parents of the deceased had founded Arcot Mission which she joined after her education and established a hospital and medical college. Except during the period of her education, she had spent the whole of her life in India, only occasionally sojourning in USA, by and large, for obtaining necessary help for the missionary activities in India. The deceased had movable property in USA and held shares in a sterling company. The principal value of her estate came to Rs. 2,01,316, including foreign movable assets at Rs. 58,854. The Assistant Controller held that the deceased was domiciled in India and brought to tax the said foreign movable assets of Rs. 58,854 under section 21. The Appellate Controller confirmed the assessment. On further appeal, the Tribunal held (i) that the deceased had not discarded her domicile of origin and had acquired a domicile of choice in India ; and (ii) that the foreign movables were, thus, not assessable to tax under section 21. The Tribunal based its decision on three reasons, namely, (i) that the domicile of origin must prevail ; (ii) that the Will dated 16-1-1960 recited that', regardless of residence or domicile at the time of her death, and even though she had no past or present intention of ever becoming a resident of or domiciled in New York State, she desired that the original or primary probate be obtained in the court of New York State ; and (iii ) that the mere fact that the deceased was having residence in India, even though for long and continuous periods, was not sufficient to establish her…
🔒
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