SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Mad) 419

THANIKKACHALAM, RATNAM
Controller of Estate Duty – Appellant
Versus
Sileshkumar R. Mehta – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:C. V. Rajan, K. C. Rajappa, Advocates.

Judgment :-

THANIKKACHALAM J.

In this reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Tribunal has referred the following two question for our opinion at the instance of the Revenue :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale proceeds of the house property credited in the books of the firm is in the nature of a trust and hence it does not form part of the assets of the firm ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of sections 46(1) and 46(2) of the Estate Duty Act, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the sum of Rs. 2, 923 and Rs. 47, 077 from the principal value of the estate ?" *

The first question pertains to the exclusion of Rs. 17, 761 while computing the principal value of the half share of the deceased in the partnership firm, M/s. Manilal and Sons. The said amount represented the credit balance in the charity account in the books of the partnership firm. The Assistant Controller came to the conclusion that the credit balance was not a real liability and it should be added while evaluati
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top