9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (9) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 31,000 gifted by the deceased to his near relations from his personal account with M. G. Rawal, Hindu undivided family, of which the deceased was a coparcener, are includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased, in view of the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 20,000, being part of the trust fund lying in the account of Messrs. Rawal and Co., in which the deceased was a partner, was includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased, in view of the provisions of section 22 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? " The deceased, Mahipatram G. Rawal, was at the time of his death on February 11, 1962, a partner in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [1980] 124 ITR 160 (Bom), by the decision of the Supreme Court, namely, CED v. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder [1973] 88 ITR 448, and the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on August 5, 1979, in Civil Appeal No. 2527 of 1972 and Civil Appeal No. 2528 of 1972 (CED v. Kamlavati and CED v. Jai Gopal Mehra) [1979] 120 ITR 456. In view of these judgments, it must be held that s. 10, of the E.D. Act was not attracted to this gift of Rs. 13,000. So far as the said gift of Rs. 31,000 is concerned, Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel for the respondent, urged that while in the cases above referred to, the investments of the amounts gifted were with a partnership firm in which the donor was a partner, in the present reference, the investments were with a j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perties either in authorized securities or in any firm in which the settlor, namely, the deceased, was a partner. The trustees invested the entire sum of Rs. 40,000 with the firm of Messrs. Rawal and Co., Bombay. From time to time they withdrew moneys out of the amount so invested with the said firm, till at the time of the death of the deceased and for a period of two years prior thereto the balance of such investment remaining with the said firm was Rs. 20,000. Here too the revenue authorities and the Tribunal took the view that s. 22 of the E.D. Act was attracted and the said balance of Rs. 20,000 was exigible to estate duty. Section 22 of the E.D. Act. omitting the proviso which is not material for our purposes, provides as follows : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
