9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , submits that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and therefore, wants to keep the issue alive. 2. We find that the Karnataka High Court in the case of V. Premila vs. CED (1975) 99 ITR 221 (Kar), the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of (i) CED vs. Estate of Late Impraksh Bajaj (1977) 110 ITR 263 (AP) and (ii) Ced vs. Smt. P. Leelavathamma 1977 CTR (AP) 128 : (1978) 112 ITR 739 (AP), the Gujarat High Court in the case of Shantaben Narottamdas vs. CED 1977 CTR (Guj) 497 : (1978) 111 ITR 365 (Guj) and the Allahabad High Court in the case of Maharani Raj Laxmi Kumari Devi vs. CED (1980) 121 ITR 1002 (All) have held that the estate duty payable was not to be deducted from the principal value of the estate. Following respectfull ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the ED Act and that s. 39 of the Act provides that such an interest will be the share in the joint family property which would have been allotted to the deceased had there been a partition immediately before his death. Thus, for the purpose of computing the value of the deceased's interest, one has to contemplate a notional partition as envisaged under the Shastric Hindu Law. In this connection reference may usefully be made to Art. 304 of Mullas Hindu Law which defines 'property available for partition' as the joint family property as reduced by the provision to be made for the maintenance and marriage expenses of such members of the family who are not entitled to a share on partition. It is pertinent that in the State of Tamil Nadu unma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court's aforesaid decision against the Accountable Persons, Sri Kumbhat, the ld. counsel for the Accountable Person, contended that the aforesaid decision was distinguishable. He stated that there was no partition in the present case and we were only to compute the value of the deceased's interest in the joint family property on the assumption of partition in the family immediately before his death. It is pointed out that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act makes provision for the maintenance of dependent members of the family vis-a-vis (what) the deceased gets by way of his share. Sri Kumbhat thus submits that the obligation as regards maintenance of the dependent members of the family is both on the individual and the HUF. While ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons and Maintenance Act refer to the maintenance qua deceased's own property only and not the joint family property in which the deceased also had an interest and, therefore, that Act may not modify or affect the maintenance provision as regards joint family property under the Shastric Hindu Law, also seems apparently significant. However, the issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid Madras High Court's decision and it is not open to us to distinguish it on the ground that some relevant aspects were not considered in that case. The propriety demands of us to assume that all such aspects were considered but their Lordships did not consider it worth while to refer to them in their order. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
