| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 417 1970 SLD 417 (1970) 76 ITR 500 |
Madras High Court
TAX CASE No. 40 OF 1965. (REFERENCE No. 13 OF 1965), DECEMBER 5, 1969
K. VEERASWAMI, C.J. NATESAN AND SOMASUNDARAM, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
TAX CASE No. 40 OF 1965. (REFERENCE No. 13 OF 1965), DECEMBER 5, 1969
K. VEERASWAMI, C.J. NATESAN AND SOMASUNDARAM, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Alladi Kuppuswami
v.
Controller of Estate Duty
Law:
Section:
ORDER OF DIVISION BENCH Veeraswami J. (14-8-1969)-This reference involves a point of great importance and raises the scope of section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act. Mammad Koyi v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty [1961] 43 ITR (ED) 1 has taken a particular view on that matter, which was actually a case of a Mohammedan tarwad. Attorney-General of Ceylon v. Arunachalam Chettiar [1957] AC 513 ; [1958] 34 ITR (ED), though available at the time, does not appear to have been cited in that case. That was a judgment of the Privy Council. Since then, Gartsidev. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1968] AC 553; 70 ITR 663 has come on a similar point which has been decided by the House of Lords. We consider that, in the circumstances, the reference should be disposed of by a fuller Bench of three judges. The papers will be placed before the learned Chief Justice for the purpose. JUDGMENT (FULL BENCH) Veeraswami, CJ.-This is a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Sri Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer, who died before the Estate Duty Act came into force, had, during his lifetime, settled certain properties absolutely on his wife, Srimathi Alladi Venkalakshmamma, and had also declared certain other properties as joint family properties. The lady having died on January 5, 1956, the principal value of her estate passing on her death was determined by the revenue at Rs. 7,25,527. This sum included Rs. 2,02,271 as the value of her 1/4th share in the properties belonging to the Hindu family consisting of herself, and her three sons. The Central Board of Revenue, agreeing with the Estate Duty Officer, upheld the inclusion as warranted by section 7(1) and dismissed the appeal from the assessment order. The Board held the view that the Hindu widow's estate created by section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, was an interest in property which ceased on the death of the widow attracting duty, and that Attorney-General of Ceylon v.Antnachalam Chettiar [1957] AC 513; [1958] 34 ITR (ED) 20 ; 3 EDC 799 (PC) had no application to such a case. The original reference to this court was of the following three questions: "1.Whether, on the facts and in theβ¦
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