| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 2749 1989 SLD 2749 (1989) 180 ITR 283 |
Allahabad High Court
K.C. AGRAWAL, ACTG, C.J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
K.C. AGRAWAL, ACTG, C.J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
R.C. Vaish
v.
Controller of Estate Duty
Law:
Section:
Section 44 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Deductions - Debts and encumbrances - Whether estate duty chargeable under section 5 was not deductible in computing principal value of property passing on death of deceased - Held, yes Section 34(1)(C) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Aggregation of estate - Whether value of interest of three male lineal descendants of deceased in joint family property would be includible under section 34(1)(c) for rate purposes - Held, yes FACTS The Tribunal held that the estate duty chargeable under section 5 was not deductible in computing the principal value of the property passing on the death of the deceased. It was also held that the value of the interest of the three male lineal descendants of the deceased in the joint family property was includible under section 34(1)(c) for rate purposes. On reference : HELD In view of the decision in Govind Prasad v. CED [1981] 127 ITR 642 (All.) the Tribunal was correct in holding that the estate duty chargeable under section 5, was not deductible in computing the principal value of the property passing on the death of the deceased. In view of the decision in Badri Vishal Tandon v. Asstt. CED [1976] 103 ITR 468 (All.) the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the interest of the three male lineal descendants of the deceased in the joint family property was includible under section 34(1)(c) for rate purposes. The controversy sought to be raised in the instant reference had rightly been decided in the said two cases, therefore, it was not a fit case for making reference to a larger Bench. Note : The decision was in favour of revenue. CASE REVIEW Govind Prasad v. CED [1981] 127 ITR 642 (All.) and Badri Vishal Tandon v. Asstt. CED [1976] 103 ITR 468 (All.)followed and relied upon. CASES REFERRED TO Govind Prasad v. CED [1981] 127 ITR 642 (All.) and Badri Vishal Tandon v. Asstt. CED [1976] 103 ITR 468 (All.). JUDGMENT This is a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. By the order, the following two questions have been referred: "1. Whether the Appellate…
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