Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram Prasad Agarwal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty and anr.

Ram Prasad Agarwal vs Controller of Estate Duty and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 08, 1990
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/457062

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 693 of 1987
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation
Acts & sections
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 50A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Prasad Agarwal

Respondent

Controller of Estate Duty and anr.

Legal References

Acts
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 50A
Reported In
[1991]190ITR613(All)

Excerpt

- b.p. jeevan reddy, c.j.1. in respect of the estate left by shiv prasad agarwal, the petitioner, the accountable person, filed a return. a provisional assessment was first made whereunder duty in a sum of rs. 26,210 is said to have been held payable. subsequently, regular assessment was made oil march 31, 1984, whereunder a demand of rs. 27,910 was raised.2. the first fact which is not clear from the record placed before us is whether the sum of rs. 27,910 includes rs. 26,210 held payable under the provisional assessment order or whether this is over and above the said amount. this aspect may first be looked into and determined by the estate duty officer (the officer now performing those duties) with notice to the petitioner.3. the petitioner further says that he has paid a sum of rs. 36,500 by way of gift-tax upon the said deceased gifting property and whose value has been included in his estate. he says that the petitioner is entitled to deduct the said gift-tax amount paid by him from out of the estate duty payable by him. this is the second aspect which has to be gone into anddecided by the estate duty officer. it is evident that if the petitioner has indeed paid the gift-tax, he is entitled to its deduction by virtue of section 50a of the estate duty act.4. both these questions may be looked into and determined by the estate duty officer after notice to the accountable person.5. the orders in this behalf shall be passed within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him by the petitioner.6. the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. no costs.

Full Judgment

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.

1. In respect of the estate left by Shiv Prasad Agarwal, the petitioner, the accountable person, filed a return. A provisional assessment was first made whereunder duty in a sum of Rs. 26,210 is said to have been held payable. Subsequently, regular assessment was made oil March 31, 1984, whereunder a demand of Rs. 27,910 was raised.

2. The first fact which is not clear from the record placed before us is whether the sum of Rs. 27,910 includes Rs. 26,210 held payable under the provisional assessment order or whether this is over and above the said amount. This aspect may first be looked into and determined by the Estate Duty Officer (the Officer now performing those duties) with notice to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner further says that he has paid a sum of Rs. 36,500 by way of gift-tax upon the said deceased gifting property and whose value has been included in his estate. He says that the petitioner is entitled to deduct the said gift-tax amount paid by him from out of the estate duty payable by him. This is the second aspect which has to be gone into anddecided by the Estate Duty Officer. It is evident that if the petitioner has indeed paid the gift-tax, he is entitled to its deduction by virtue of Section 50A of the Estate Duty Act.

4. Both these questions may be looked into and determined by the Estate Duty Officer after notice to the accountable person.

5. The orders in this behalf shall be passed within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him by the petitioner.

6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial