Controller of Estate Duty Vs. A.D. Kanabar and G.D. Kanabar

Controller of Estate Duty vs A.D. Kanabar and G.D. Kanabar

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Mar 17, 1990

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/347541

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/347541
Court: Mumbai High Court
Judge: Sujata V. Manohar and;T.D. Sugla, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 17, 1990
Case Number: Estate Duty Reference No. 20 of 1976
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation
Acts & sections: ED Act, 1953

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Controller of Estate Duty

Advocate G.S. Jetley, Adv.

Respondent

A.D. Kanabar and G.D. Kanabar

Legal References

Acts: ED Act, 1953
Reported In: [1991]190ITR552(Bom)

Excerpt

- t.d. sugla j.1. the only question referred to this court in this reference at the instance of the department is as under :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that in the computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased, the estate duty payable in respect of the estate of the deceased should be deducted ?'2. the respondent has been served but he has chosen to rely on the judgment of the tribunal mentioned in the letter addressed to the department's counsel and also on the judgment of the mysore high court reported in mrs. blanche nathalia pinto v. state of mysore (1964) 53 itr 64.3. mr. jetley, learned counsel for the department, points out that the issue involved herein is covered by out judgment delivered in estate duty references nos. 21 and 30 of 1976 on july 5, 1990 ced v. bipinchandra n. patal : [1990]186itr29(bom) in favour of the revenue and against the accountable person. he also points out that the judgment of the mysore high court and other judgments relied upon by the accountable person in his letter have been considered by this court.4. following out judgment in ced v. bipinchandra n. patel : [1990]186itr29(bom) , we hold that the estate duty payable in respect of the estate of the deceased is not deductible for the purpose of computing the principal value of the estate of the deceased.5. accordingly, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue.6. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

T.D. Sugla J.

1. The only question referred to this court in this reference at the instance of the Department is as under :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased, the estate duty payable in respect of the estate of the deceased should be deducted ?'

2. The respondent has been served but he has chosen to rely on the judgment of the Tribunal mentioned in the letter addressed to the Department's counsel and also on the judgment of the Mysore High Court reported in Mrs. Blanche Nathalia Pinto v. State of Mysore (1964) 53 ITR 64.

3. Mr. Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, points out that the issue involved herein is covered by out judgment delivered in Estate Duty References Nos. 21 and 30 of 1976 on July 5, 1990 CED v. Bipinchandra N. Patal : [1990]186ITR29(Bom) in favour of the Revenue and against the accountable person. He also points out that the judgment of the Mysore High Court and other judgments relied upon by the accountable person in his letter have been considered by this court.

4. Following out judgment in CED v. Bipinchandra N. Patel : [1990]186ITR29(Bom) , we hold that the estate duty payable in respect of the estate of the deceased is not deductible for the purpose of computing the principal value of the estate of the deceased.

5. Accordingly, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.

6. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Mumbai · 1990 Same Parties Controller of Estate Duty vs A.D. Kanabar and G.D. Kanabar Same Subject Direct Taxation Same Judge Sujata V. Manohar and;T.D. Sugla, JJ. Acts & Sections ED Act, 1953

Direct Taxation