9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of the deceased's share in the goodwill of the firm in the principal value of the estate. 2. Applicability of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act to the gifted property of Rs. 60,000. Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Inclusion of the deceased's share in the goodwill of the firm in the principal value of the estate The court examined whether the deceased's 3/16ths share in the goodwill of the firm should be included in the principal value of the estate. The Tribunal had previously held that the legal representatives of the deceased were not entitled to the goodwill of the business due to clause 14 of the partnership deed dated April 22, 1954, and thus, no interest in the goodwill passed on the death of the deceased. However, the court disagreed, stating that the deceased had a 3/16ths share in all the assets of the firm, including the goodwill, at the time of his death. The court emphasized that the death of the deceased resulted in the surviving partners' interest in the goodwill being augmented, thereby constituting a passing of property u/s 5 of the Estate Duty Act. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Khushal Khemgar Shah v. Mrs. Khorshed Banu, which supported the view that the interest in the goodwill of a firm does not extinguish upon a partner's death if the partnership agreement provides for the continuation of the partnership. Consequently, the court held that the inclusion of the deceased's share in the goodwill in the principal value of the estate was justified and answered the first question in favor of the revenue. Issue 2: Applicability of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act to the gifted property of Rs. 60,000 The second issue concerned whether the sum of Rs. 60,000 gifted by the deceased to his children could be brought to charge u/s 10 of the Estate Duty Act. The Tribunal had held that the possession and enjoyment of the gifted property were retained to the entire exclusion of the donor, as the donor, being a partner in the firm, did not have any specific share in the partnership property. The court, however, referred to its decision in T.C. No. 292 of 1968 (Radhabai Ramchand v. Controller of Estate Duty), which established that the gifted property was not retained to the entire exclusion of the donor. Therefore, the court answered the second question in the negative and in favor of the revenue. Conclusion: Both questions referred were answered in favor of the revenue, and the revenue was entitled to its costs, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 250.
|
