9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (9) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son, through a deed dated February 12, 1956. The following are the relevant facts: The deceased, Sait Bansilal, died on March 28, 1958. He made a gift of two rice mills by a registered deed dated February 12, 1956, to his wife, the accountable person. The lease amounts were collected by the deceased under a lease deed executed in his favour earlier to the date of the gift. The method adopted by him for collecting the rents in respect of the two rice mills gifted to his wife was to first enter the rents received by him in his accounts and later credit the same to the account of his wife. Even as regards the expenditure incurred, the entries were first made in his accounts and then debited in her account. The income so realised by the wife ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which is the subject-matter of the gift to the exclusion of the donor, immediately upon the gift. The other condition imposed by section 10 is that the donee must have retained such possession and enjoyment of the property to the entire exclusion of the donor or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise. The Supreme Court has laid down that, unless each of these two conditions is satisfied, the property would be liable to estate duty under section 10 of the Act. In George Da Costa's case [1967] 63 ITR 497 (SC), it was found that the donor was not entirely excluded from possession and enjoyment within the meaning of the first limb of the section. The fact that, on account of filial affection, the sons allowed the father, the donor, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , thereafter, he died on 5th May, 1957. The question raised was whether the value of the house property gifted could be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass under section 10 of the Act. The Supreme Court, on those facts, held that the possession which the donor could give was the legal possession which the circumstances and the nature of the property would admit and this the donor had given and the benefit the donor had as a member of the partnership was not a benefit referable in any way to the gift but was unconnected therewith. It should be borne in mind that, in ordinary Hindu families, the property belonging exclusively to a female member is normally managed by the manager of the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
