9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the firm of Vimal and Amar Talkies had goodwill that could be included in the deceased partner's estate for estate duty assessment. Analysis: The deceased partner was a one-sixth share partner in the firm of Vimal and Amar Talkies, engaged in the exhibition of cinema films. The Assistant Controller initially held that the firm had goodwill, adding Rs. 13,125 to the estate for estate duty. The Assistant Controller referred to relevant case laws and the partnership deed, suggesting that the firm had contemplated goodwill as an asset. However, the Controller (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the firm did not have goodwill as the customers remembered the theatres rather than the business operators. The Controller (Appeals) excluded the Rs. 13,125 from the assessment based on this reasoning. Further, the department appealed the decision, arguing that the firm did have goodwill, as indicated in the partnership deed. The department referred to other case laws to support its stance. The Appellate Tribunal found that the Controller (Appeals) erred in concluding that a cinema business must own theatres to have goodwill. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized that goodwill depends on various factors beyond ownership of premises. The Tribunal overturned the Controller (Appeals) decision, stating that the firm indeed had goodwill, and remanded the case back to consider if the deceased partner's share in goodwill passed on to his estate for assessment. In conclusion, the appeal was partially allowed, and the case was sent back to determine if the deceased partner's share in the firm's goodwill should be included in the estate for estate duty assessment. The Tribunal held that the firm of Vimal and Amar Talkies did possess goodwill, contrary to the Controller (Appeals) finding.
|
