9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (1) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 72 - Judge(s) : RAMANUJAM., V. RAMASWAMY. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by RAMASWAMI J.-This is a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the question referred for our decision is : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the insurance policies of Rs. 92,520 tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reated the sum of Rs. 92,520, which is the total value of the policies, as belonging to the Hindu undivided family. The Deputy Controller of Estate Duty held that these insurance policies having been nominated in favour of the wife of the deceased, must be deemed to have been taken for the benefit of the wife and not for the benefit of the Hindu undivided family. In that view he held that the to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able under those policies belong to the Hindu undivided family and could not be treated as the separate property of the deceased. At the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, the above question of law has been referred for a decision by this court. In the decision in Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Controller of Estate Duty the facts of which were almost identical, a Division Bench of this court hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision. In the present case, it has been found by the appellate authority and the Tribunal, and it is not also disputed, that the premiums were paid out of the joint family funds, though the physical act of paying the premiums was that of the deceased himself. It is, therefore, clear that section 14 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is not applicable. In the foregoing circumstances, we answer the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
