9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as huge volatility in the tea export business; that export of tea had huge volatility even otherwise; and, in the circumstances, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of one year’s purchase instead of three years’ purchase for evaluating the goodwill of the firm. – Held that this aspect was a purre question of fact and the Supreme Court would not interfere - On the question as to whether the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate, with him) for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S. H. KAPADIA J. - 1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 2. This civil appeal is filed by the Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala, against the decision dated July 18, 2003, delivered by the Kerala High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 62 of 1998. 3. One V. C Saraf passed away on October 18, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... method to the facts of the present case. Applying the super profits method, the Assistant Controller applied the multiplier of three years' purchase whereas the assessee-respondent con tended that 3X was excessive. The Assistant Controller further held that fund of income-tax, which became due after the demise of V. G. Saraf, constituted property of the deceased, which was also disputed by the leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be applied for evaluating the goodwill of the firm. It all depends on the nature of the business and the prevailing market conditions. Hence, we are of the view that this aspect is a pure question of fact and does not call for interference by this court. In this connection, one more point needs to be highlighted. In order to determine the super profits, the Assistant Controller and the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d only after the demise of the deceased. Hence, such refund cannot be considered to be a property available at the time of the death (see Estate of Late General Sir Shankar S. S. J. B. Rana v. CED [1990] 186 1TR 578 (Bom)). 7. For the aforestated reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court, hence, this appeal filed by the Department stands dismissed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
