Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979]117ITR190(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference made to his court by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, under s. 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 20, 85, 649 representing the value of 1/3rd share of the trust corpus, was correctly included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased for purposes of estate duty ?' 2. The estate duty assessment pertains to the estate of Her late Highness Maharani Chimnabai Gaekwar of Baroda, who died on 23rd August, 1958. It appears that an account of the property passing on the death of the deceased was furnished to the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay, by Prince Khanderao Raje Gaekwar of Baroda and Her Highness Usha Raje Rani of Jath, who were the administrators of the estate of the deceased and accountable persons under the Act. The Deputy Controller found that the deceased had an interest under a trust settleme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 148(2008)DLT170; 2008(101)DRJ582
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this appeal filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of organized Crimes Act, 1999 (for short the MCOCA), the appellant seeks to assail the order on charge dated 12th October, 2006 and the charge dated 3-11-2006 whereby the learned Special Judge, MCOCA, New Delhi has charged the appellant under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short the ITP Act), Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5) and Section 4 of the MCOCA and Section 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC in FIR No. 96/2005, Police Station Chanakya Puri.2. The brief facts as they emerge from the record are that on 19th April, 2005, SI Sajjan Singh, on receipt of information that the appellant Kamaljeet Singh and his associate Pappi supply girls for prostitution in Five Star Hotels and carry on their business through mobile No. 9810645454 9810645454 , passed on the said information to ACP Kumar Gyanesh, who directed SI Sajjan Singh to strike a deal on the above mobile numbe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Knowlton v. Moore - 178 U.S. 41 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900) Knowlton v. Moore{|178 U.S. 41fn1|1} No. 387 Argued December 6-7, 1899 Decided May 14, 1900 178 U.S. 41 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The plaintiffs in error were the executors of the will of Edwin F. Knowlton, of Brooklyn, New York. The defendant in error was the United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the First Collection District for the New York. Mr. Knowlton died at Brooklyn in October, 1898, and his will was duly proved. Under the portion of the Act of Congress of June 13, 1898, which is printed at length in a note to the opinion of the Court in this case, the United States Collector of Internal Revenue demanded of the executors a return showing the amount of the personal estate of the deceased and the legatees and distributees thereof. This return the executors made under protest, asserting that the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Belinda Ang Saw Ean J: 1. The present action, which concerns the estate of the late Lim Tian Siong ("the father") and the estate of his wife, the late Goh Choon Eng ("the mother"), is a dispute amongst siblings. The first defendant, Lim Boh Chuan ("D1"), was the eldest child of the family and one of the administrators of the father's estate. The second defendant, Lim Puay Koon ("D2"), was the second child of the family and one of the administrators of the mother's estate. The plaintiff, Mdm Lim Siew Bee, the youngest sibling, claims to have been deprived of her actual entitlement in both estates by the defendants. 2. The plaintiff alleges, amongst other things, that the defendants had dishonestly and in breach of trust dealt with assets belonging to their parents' estates in a manner that diminished the values of both estates thereby benefitting themselves at her expense. As her pleadings stand, the plaintiff primarily seeks the remedy of an account of both parents' estates based on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1980]126ITR185(KAR); [1980]126ITR185(Karn)
Venkataramiah, J.1. This case arises out of the estate duty proceedings consequent on the death of one Nagaraja Rao Purnaiya (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who died on April 27, 1960. The estate duty return was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, namely, Raghavendra Rao Purnaiya, Malathi Purnaiya and Kumari Nirmala Bai. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the question relating to the liability of certain amount which had been awarded as compensation by the State Government under the provisions of the Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Inams Abolition Act'), in respect of Yelandur jahgirdar, arose for consideration. The facts relating to the above question are as follows : The deceased was a descendant of Dewan Purnaiya who was the original grantee of the jahgirdar of Yelandur consisting of several villages in the District of Mysore. The grant was made in the year 1807 by His Highness, K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Covington v. Kentucky - 173 U.S. 231 (1899) U.S. Supreme Court Covington v. Kentucky, 173 U.S. 231 (1899) Covington v. Kentucky No. 152 Submitted January 18, 1899 Decided February 20, 1899 173 U.S. 231 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Syllabus This Court is bound by the construction put by the highest court of the Kentucky upon its statutes, referred to in the opinion of the Court, relating to exemptions from taxation of property used for "public purposes," however much it may doubt the soundness of the interpretation. The provision in the Act of the legislature of Kentucky of May 1, 1886, c. 897, that "the said reservoir or reservoirs, machinery, pipes, mains and appurtenances, with the land on which they are situated," which the City of Covington was, by that act, authorized to acquire and construct "shall be and remain forever exempt from state, county and city tax" did not, in view of the provision in the Act of February 14, 1856, that "all chart...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1922)43MLJ347
Walter Salis Schwabe Kt., K.C., C.J.1. The question is whether for the purpose of arriving at the amount of commission payable to the Administrator Genera] in the administration of an interstate estate in cases where the administration commenced before April 1914, the value of the assets is to be taken at the date of their collection or at the date of their distribution.2. By the Act of 1913, the fees, whether by percentage or otherwise, to be charged in respect of the duties of the Administrator-General are those that may be prescribed by the Government provided that in respect of estates the administration of which commenced before the Act, the fees prescribed are not to exceed the fees leviable in respect of such an estate under the Act of 1874, which had been in force down to that date, and which was by that Act repealed. The word 'prescribed in that section means 'prescribed by rules issued by the Government.' So far as Madras is concerned, rules have been issued by Government in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 74Ind.Cas.182
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. The question is whether, for the purpose of arriving at the amount of commission payable to the Administrator-General in the administration of an intestate estate in cases where the administration commenced before April 1914, the value of the assets is to be taken at the date of their collection or at the date of their distribution.2. By the Act of 1913, the fees, whether by percentage or otherwise, to be charged in respect of the duties of the Administrator-General are those that may be prescribed by the Government provided that in respect of estates the administration of which commenced before the Act, the fees prescribed are not to exceed the fees leviable in respect of such, an estate under the Act of 1874, which had been in force down to that date, and which was by that Act repealed. The word 'prescribed', in that section means 'prescribed by rules issued by the Government.' So far as Madras is concerned, rules have been issued by Government in 1916, Rule II...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR277
Gokhale, J.(Paras 1 to 7 omitted.)(8) The principal point of controversy which has been agitated at considerble length in these appeals is whether S. 8 of the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947 (LXIV of 1947), which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Bombay Act', has been rendered inoperative by virtue of a notification issued by the Textile commissioner on 16-7-1953 under the provisions of the central Cotton Order, 1950, which order itself was issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Legislature by the Essential Supplies (Temporay Powers) Act , 1946 (XXIV of 1946), which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Essential Supplies Act'. As we have already indicated. the other law point which was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs in these suits was wherther the Bombay Act was also redered inopertative by virtue of the notification applying s. 15 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (74 of 1952). That notification was issued on 30-7-1954, that is to s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
V.K. Shukla, J. For getting an authoritative pronouncement, as to whether the definition of family as interpreted in the case of Ram Murat and others Vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and others reported in (2006) (5) ADJ 396 is correct or not, the matter has been referred to this Full Bench for answering the following two questions' (i) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Murat (supra), defining the word 'Family' as given in Government Order dated 3.7.1990 ( Para 4.7) lays down the correct law specially after the enforcement of order 2004 ? (ii) Whether the definition of family as given in Clause 2(o) of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order,2004, shall override the definition of family given in para 4.7 of Government order dated 3.7.1990 ? The factual background in which the aforementioned issues have been raised are that petitioner of present writ petition was appointed as a fair price shop dealer in the year 1993. Petitioner's son Raj B...
Tag this Judgment!