9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequent to his retirement. However, similar facts are not available regarding Ghanshyam Sugar Factory. It appears that from this firm also, the deceased had retired before his death. 2. The deceased, however, died on 18-1-1981. The Assistant Controller was of the opinion that since the deceased had not taken his share in the development reserve and investment allowance in Krishan Khandsari Udyog and investment allowance from Ghanshyam Sugar Factory, it could be deemed that he had made a gift of his share in favour of other partners. Further, since the deceased had died within a period of two years from the date of retirement from the above firms, the Assistant Controller held that section 9 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act') was ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of death as no such intention has been established. This amount is deleted from the value of the estate (Relief Rs. 25,547). 3 and 4. 5. The last grievance of the appellant is against inclusion of Rs. 3,044 being investment allowance reserve in another firm Ghanshyam Sugar Factory where the deceased was a partner on behalf of the HUF. This again was not a gift, in my opinion, because it has to be seen from the partnership deed of other business where the deceased was entitled to this share on leaving the firm before his death. In the absence of such stipulation in the deed it cannot be said that he had become entitled to a share of the reserve and, therefore, not taken the share on his retirement, was a gift. The investment allowance has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only his capital and nothing more, but at the same time, he was also relieved of all future liabilities of the firm. He contended that on these facts, the decision of the Madras High Court in A.K.D. Dharmaraja's case was not applicable, but it was the case of Bombay High Court in Smt. Urmila v. CED [1980] 122 ITR 958, which applied. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions placed before us. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the accountable person that his case was fully covered by the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court. We quote below from the head-note of the case as under: "The deceased was also a partner in two other firms. Within two years before his death he retired from those firms. The deeds of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acted. The share which the deceased had at the time of retirement in the goodwill of the two firms could not be added in his estate for purposes of estate duty." We also agree with the submission of the counsel that the decision in the case of A.K.D. Dharmaraja has no application to the present case. In this case, the death had taken place, while the deceased was a partner in a firm. The question related to the valuation of the deceased's share in the firm. One of the related questions in this regard was whether the development reserve should be deducted as a liability from the assets of the firm for the purposes of arriving at the share of the deceased in the surplus of the assets or not. It was held that the reserve could not be deducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
