9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The amount remained in the said business thereafter to the credit of the donee till the death of the deceased. On February 12, 1956, the deceased adopted the donee as his son, after which the business was carried on by a HUF consisting of the deceased and the donee. In assessing estate duty, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty held that as the deceased was a coparcener and the karta of the HUF, he was not entirely excluded from the possession and enjoyment of the amount of the gift. He also found that the loan was carrying interest at the rate of 4.1/2% which was lower than the usual market rate. He concluded that bona fide possession and enjoyment of the property given in gift was not retained by the donee to the entire exclusion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deceased under the provisions of s. 10 of the E.D. Act, 1953 " ? At the hearing, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the gift in question was made in favour of the adopted son and the money remained throughout in the books of the family under control of the donor, the karta. It was not a fact that the donee enjoyed the amount to the entire exclusion of the donor. Learned counsel for the accountable person contended to the contrary and submitted that the gift being a gift of a movable asset, i.e., money, remained invested for the purpose of earning interest and, in fact, earned interest and, therefore, could not be included in the estate of the deceased. In support of the respective contentions of the parties, the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tries were made. Nothing more remained to be done by the donor to divest himself of the possession and enjoyment of the money. The amount remained to the credit of the donee in the business and earned interest throughout. The character of the subject-matter of the gift did not change even after the donee was adopted by the donor. It has not been found as a fact that after the adoption the donee brought back the amount into the hotchpot of the joint family. The control which the donee initially had over the amount remained unaltered even after the adoption. The Supreme Court held in CED v. Kamlavali [1979] 120 ITR 456, that where the amounts of the gift were invested in a firm, where the donor was a partner, there was no relinquishment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
