9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Rs. 50,566 should be allowed against the principal value of the estate of the deceased and not against the value of Rs. 96,000 of the residential flat, mentioned above. 2. The facts of the case are that Shri C.M. Dalal died on 14-5-1977, leaving as one of his assets a residential flat in the Divine Grace Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. at Santacruz, Bombay. He had purchased this flat for Rs. 96,000 from the Co-operative Society. Part of the funds were raised by him in his lifetime from the Tata Sons Consolidated Provident Fund, namely, Rs. 36,320 and Rs. 14,246, from the Term Insurance Scheme. On Shri Dalal's death, the accountable person claimed the deduction on account of liabilities to the provident funds and insurance debts from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deceased which passed on his death to the extent of one-half or part thereof exclusively used by the deceased to the extent that the principal value thereof did not exceed Rs. 1 lakh if such house was situated in a place with a population exceeding ten thousand and the full principal value thereof in any other case. Thereafter, the learned departmental representative referred us to section 44(c) of the Act wherein provision is made for deduction of liabilities. This section, however, specifically debars any allowance being made for liability under section 44(c) more than once for the same debt or incumbrance charged upon different portions of the estate. It is submitted that the property was exempt under section 33(1)(n) and the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mely, Rs. 96,000. This takes us to the question of the admissibility of the liabilities which, to our mind, is an independent question irrespective of availability of exemption or otherwise to the value of the flat. All the liabilities have to be allowed as a deduction while considering the principal value of any estate under section 44 unless any of these liabilities suffer from any of the disabilities enumerated in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 44. Obviously the liabilities were not hit by the prohibition either in section 44(a), (b) and (d). Clause (c) of section 44 to which reference was made by the learned departmental representative also, to our mind, does not come to the rescue of the revenue authorities inasmuch as while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
