| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1969 SLG 610 1969 SLD 610 (1969) 74 ITR 84 |
Rajasthan High Court
CIVIL REFERENCE No. 24 OF 1963, dated December 6, 1968
D.M. BHANDARI AND V.P. TYAGI, JJ.
Hastimal for the Petitioner. S.C. Bhandari for the
Respondent
CIVIL REFERENCE No. 24 OF 1963, dated December 6, 1968
D.M. BHANDARI AND V.P. TYAGI, JJ.
Hastimal for the Petitioner. S.C. Bhandari for the
Respondent
Madan Lal
VS
Controller of Estate Duty
Law:
Section:
Section 44, read with section 46, of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Deductions - Debts and encumbrances - Various properties belonged to HUF consisting of 'S', his sons and grand sons - 'S' had started business with his two major sons and there was no nucleus of joint family property for starting that business- In 1941, 'S' executed deed of partition whereby he effected division of properties amongst his sons - While he gave some of property to his sons, he kept some property to himself and stated that he was sole owner thereof and he was at liberty to spend it as he liked - 'S' died in 1957 - Several mortgage deeds had been executed for various amounts by debtors mortgaging their property to 'S' and his sons and these mortgage deeds had been included in property of deceased - Further deceased had withdrawn some amount from his account in partnership concern and deposited this amount in names of his four daughters-in-law in account books - Central Board of Revenue held that entire property formed part of estate of deceased -Whether on facts, it could be said that up to date of execution of partition deed, 'S' intended to keep property as his separate property - Held, yes - Whether in absence of any other circumstances, filing of returns and getting his property taxed on basis of joint family property were not sufficient to show an intention of abandonment of his claim on part of 'S' - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, as a matter of law that Central Board of Revenue was not in error in holding that these circumstances did not show on part of 'S' an intention to treat his separate property as joint family property - Held, yes - Whether amount gifted in favour of daughters could not be deducted in computing principal value of estate - Held, yes FACTS Various properties belonging to a Hindu undivided family consisting of 'S', his sons and grandsons 'S' started a business with his two major sons and was subsequently developed by them. A deed of partition was executed between 'S' and his four sons in 1941. By said deed 'S' effected the division of properties which were acquired absolutely by him amongst his four sons. 'S' died on 24-2-1957 and his sons, the accountable…
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