Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 1270 1985 SLD 1270 (1985) 154 ITR 251
Bombay High Court
30662
M.L. PENDSE, J.

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

M.T. Kapadia

v.

S.V. Naik

Law:

Section:

Section 57(1) of the estate duty act, 1953-Provisional assessment-Whether while passing provisional assessment order under section 57(1), assistant controller has to proceed on basis of return filed by accountable person and cannot pass an order disallowing deductions claimed by accountable person which raise disputed questions of law and thereby demand higher tax-Held, yes Facts While filing the return of estate duty on the death of D, the petitioner-accountable person claimed deduction of estate duty liability and the probate duty in computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased. The Assistant Controller, while passing a provisional assessment order under section 57(1), disallowed the above-mentioned deductions while calculating the principal value of the estate and, consequently, raised a tax demand higher than that exigible on the basis of the returned figures. On writ: Held The questions raised by the accountable person regarding the deducibility of (i) estate duty liability, and (ii) probate duty payable, while computing the principal value of the estate, were disputed questions of law and, therefore, while passing the provisional assessment order, the Assistant Controller could not have ignored the claims of the petitioners and passed a provisional assessment order demanding estate duty on the basis of principal value of the estate so increased. The impugned order was, therefore, set aside, though the Assistant Controller was left free to pass a fresh provisional assessment order. Case review Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 799 (SC) relied on. Case referred to Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 799 (SC). WRIT PETITION NO. 61 OF 1980. S. P. Mehta and Mrs. Arati Visanji for the Petitioner. R.J. Joshi and Dinesh Parekh for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are the accountable persons under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act'), for the estate duty payable on the estate of late Shri P.R. Morarji, who expired on 2-5-1978. The petitioners furnished to the respondent No. 1, Assistant Controller, an account of the property of the deceased, in respect of which estate duty was payable as provided under section 53(2) of the…
πŸ”’
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