Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Mani Raj and Others

Controller of Estate Duty vs Mani Raj and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 28, 1990

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/792020

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/792020
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: T. Somasundaram and ;V. Ratnam, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 28, 1990
Case Number: Tax Case No. 50 of 1980 (Reference No. 50 of 1980)
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 2(15), 10, 27 and 34(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Controller of Estate Duty

Advocate C.V. Rajan, Adv.

Respondent

Mani Raj and Others

Advocate Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 2(15), 10, 27 and 34(1)
Cases Referred: V. Devaki Ammal v. Asst.
Reported In: [1990]186ITR558(Mad)

Excerpt

- ratnam, j.1. in this reference under section 64(1) of the estate duty act, 1953, at the instance of the controller of estate duty, the following three questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : '(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the properties admitted by the accountable person in annexure 'f' of the estate duty account could not be included in the principal value of the deceased's estate in terms of section 10 read with section 27 of the estate duty act (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the throwing of personal property by a coparcener into the common hotchpot of the family would not amount to a 'disposition' within the meaning of explanation 2 to section 2(15) of the estate duty act (3) without prejudice to questions nos. (1) and (2) above, whether the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the lineal descendants' share in the aforesaid properties cannot be aggregated under section 34(1)(c) for rate purposes ?' 2. in so far as questions nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the decision of this court in tax case no. 580 of 1977 dated november 12, 1981 is against the revenue. in view of that, questions nos. 1 and 2 have to be answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. 3. in so far as the third questions is concerned, section 34(1)(c) of the estate duty act had been struck down as being violative of article 14 of the constitution of india in the decision reported in v. devaki ammal v. asst. ced : [1973]91itr24(mad) . under those circumstances, the tribunal was quite right in holding that there cannot be an aggregation under that section. we, therefore, answer the third question also in the affirmative and against the revenue. there will be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Ratnam, J.

1. In this reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, the following three questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion :

'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the properties admitted by the accountable person in annexure 'F' of the estate duty account could not be included in the principal value of the deceased's estate in terms of section 10 read with section 27 of the Estate Duty Act

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the throwing of personal property by a coparcener into the common hotchpot of the family would not amount to a 'disposition' within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act

(3) Without prejudice to questions Nos. (1) and (2) above, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the lineal descendants' share in the aforesaid properties cannot be aggregated under section 34(1)(c) for rate purposes ?'

2. In so far as questions Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the decision of this court in Tax Case No. 580 of 1977 dated November 12, 1981 is against the Revenue. In view of that, questions Nos. 1 and 2 have to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.

3. In so far as the third questions is concerned, section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act had been struck down as being violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India in the decision reported in V. Devaki Ammal v. Asst. CED : [1973]91ITR24(Mad) . Under those circumstances, the Tribunal was quite right in holding that there cannot be an aggregation under that section. We, therefore, answer the third question also in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 1990 Same Parties Controller of Estate Duty vs Mani Raj and Others Same Subject Direct Taxation Same Judge T. Somasundaram and ;V. Ratnam, JJ. Acts & Sections Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 2(15), 10, 27 and 34(1)

Direct Taxation