9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1979 (9) TMI 69 - SC - Indian LawsWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act did apply to the gifts of 1, 00, 000 and of 50, 000 made by the deceased to his son and wife respectively ? Held that - In the instant case it is clear that the ratio of the decisions of this court in Gounder s case 1973 (2) TMI 52 - SUPREME Court is squarely applicable and the Tribunal as well as the High Court was right in holding that no estate duty could be charged in respect of the two sums of money viz. 1, 00, 000 and 50, 000.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation and applicability of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation and Applicability of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 Facts and Background: The appeals concern the estate of two deceased individuals, Maharaj Mal and Jaishi Ram, and the inclusion of certain gifted amounts in their estates for estate duty purposes. Maharaj Mal gifted Rs. 1,00,000 to his son and Rs. 50,000 to his wife, which were subsequently invested in a partnership firm where he was a partner. Jaishi Ram gifted Rs. 20,000 each to his son and four daughters-in-law, who then invested the amounts in the partnership firm where Jaishi Ram was a partner. Legal Question: The main legal question is whether the gifted amounts should be included in the estate of the deceased under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, which stipulates that the property gifted must be excluded from the donor's possession and enjoyment to avoid estate duty. Judicial Precedents: Several precedents were reviewed, including: - Clifford John Chick v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1959]: The Privy Council held that if the donor retains possession or enjoyment of the gifted property through a partnership, the property is dutiable. - George Da Costa v. CED [1967]: The Supreme Court of India emphasized that both conditions of Section 10 are cumulative: the donee must assume possession and enjoyment to the exclusion of the donor, and the donor must be excluded from any benefit. - CED v. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder [1973]: The Supreme Court held that the benefit derived by the donor as a partner in the firm was not referable to the gift, thus not attracting estate duty. - CED v. N. R. Ramarathnam [1973]: Similar to Gounder's case, the court ruled that the amounts gifted were not chargeable to estate duty under Section 10. - CED v. R.V. Viswanathan [1976]: The court held that the mere fact of a partnership using the gifted money does not mean the donor enjoys a benefit referable to the gift. Court's Analysis and Conclusion: - Civil Appeal No. 2527 of 1972 (Maharaj Mal's Case): The court analyzed whether the donor's continued enjoyment of the property through the partnership firm made the gifted amounts dutiable. The court concluded that the benefit derived by the donor was not referable to the gift itself but was consistent with the donor's role as a partner. Thus, the amounts gifted to the son and wife were not liable to estate duty under Section 10. - Civil Appeal No. 2528 of 1972 (Jaishi Ram's Case): The court found that the donees were creditors of the firm and not partners. The sums gifted were already being utilized by the firm before and after the gift. Applying the principles from Munro's case, the court held that the amounts were not chargeable to estate duty as the donor's benefit was not referable to the gift. Final Judgment: Both appeals were dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 2528 was dismissed with costs, while no order as to costs was made for Civil Appeal No. 2527, which proceeded ex parte. Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the amounts gifted by the deceased individuals to their family members, which were subsequently invested in partnership firms where the donors were partners, were not liable to estate duty under Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The court clarified that the benefit derived by the donor as a partner in the firm was not referable to the gift, thus not attracting estate duty.
|
