| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 397 1966 SLD 397 (1966) 61 ITR 317 |
Madras High Court
TAX CASE No. 62 OF 1963 (REFERENCE No. 15 OF 1963), DECEMBER 16, 1965
VEERASWAMI AND KAILASAMI, JJ.
S. Swaminathan for the Applicant. V. Balasubrahmanyan for the
Respondent
TAX CASE No. 62 OF 1963 (REFERENCE No. 15 OF 1963), DECEMBER 16, 1965
VEERASWAMI AND KAILASAMI, JJ.
S. Swaminathan for the Applicant. V. Balasubrahmanyan for the
Respondent
Seethalakshmi Ammal
v.
Controller of Estate Duty
Law:
Section:
Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Levy of estate duty - Whether where business involves no distinguishable features and deals in standard articles manufactured by someone else which one can get from anywhere and not from particular dealer, there is hardly any possibility of there being goodwill attached to such business - Held, yes - Whether fact that deceased was one of quota holder of yarn manufactured by reputed mills, his business had no goodwill attached to it and, hence, same would not be evaluated and included in his estate - Held, yes Section 14 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Policies kept up for a donee - Deceased separated from his brother - He had taken out thirteen insurance policies on his life, premia for which for keeping them up had been paid from and out of joint family funds and two of which were assigned in favour of his wife, and in respect of rest there was nomination in her favour - Revenue authorities held that insurance moneys received by widow after death of deceased policy holder were his separate property liable to estate duty - Whether expressions "kept up by him" in section 14 indicate that premium paid should be from his own funds, which will be determinative of who kept up policy - Held, yes - Whether since premiums to keep up policies effected by deceased were paid out of joint family funds it had to be held that life insurance policies were property of joint Hindu family not includible in estate of deceased - Held, yes - Whether, further, by nomination, accountable person, by no means became a donee of nominee within meaning of section 14 and, therefore, it could be said that insurance policies were not kept up by deceased for benefit of donee either as a nominee or assignee - Held, yes Words and phrases: - Words "kept up" as occurring in section 14 of Estate Duty Act. FACTS The deceased became divided from his brother on 17-8-1935 and died on 17-2-1957. Besides his two sons, both minors, he left his wife the accountable person and three daughters. The deceased's one-third share in the joint family properties was admittedly liable to duty. The Assistant Controller added to the principal value certain amount which…
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