| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 1027 1983 SLD 1027 (1983) 142 ITR 863 |
Madhya Pradesh High Court
DECEMBER 16, 1981 MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 463 OF 1976.
G.P. SINGH, C.J., J.S. VERMAN AND C.P. SEN, JJ.
K.B. Joshi for the Applicant. B.K. Rawat for the
Respondent.
DECEMBER 16, 1981 MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 463 OF 1976.
G.P. SINGH, C.J., J.S. VERMAN AND C.P. SEN, JJ.
K.B. Joshi for the Applicant. B.K. Rawat for the
Respondent.
Ramratan
v.
Controller of Estate Duty
Law:
Section:
Section 5 of the E state duty Act, 1953-Property passing on death-Deceased, along with his wife, received one-half share on partial partition of his bigger HUF-T hereafier he formed a smaller HUF with his wife and was being assessed in status of HUF -He had no son-Whether on his death, entire share (and not merely half of share) received by him on partition of his bigger HUF passed-Held, on facts, yes Facts A HUF, consisting of deceased, his wife, his nephew and nephew's mother, was partly partitioned in the year 1955. On partition the deceased got half share and the other half went to the nephew and his mother. The deceased died on 21-6-1971. The accountable person claimed that the share received by the deceased on partial partition did not belong to him exclusively but the same belonged to a smaller HUF, consisting of the deceased and his wife, and as such the estate passing on the death of the deceased should be taxed in accordance with the provisions of section 39(1), taking the interest of the deceased in the property belonging to the smaller HUF as one half, leaving out the other half which belonged to his wife. The Assistant Controller disallowed the accountable person's claim but, on appeal, the Appellate Controller accepted the same. On further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Controller and restored the order of the Assistant Controller. On reference: Held Female members in a HUF have no ownership in the property belonging to the family. The ownership of such a property is held by a smaller body which is called the coparcenary and in case there is only one coparcener, it is he alone who owns the entire property. Section 7 applies only when an interest in the joint family property ceased and section 39(1), which lays down the mode of valuation of such interest, can apply only when the joint family property is vested in more than one person whereas in the instant case the impugned property vested only in the deceased, he being the only coparcener. Therefore, section 39(1) was not applicable in the instant case. Further, since the deceased had no son and as the partition was between the deceased and his nephew and nephew's…
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