TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court excludes joint family assets from deceased's estate under Estate Duty Act, awarding costs to successful applicant.</h1> <h3>A. Ranganathan Versus Controller of Estate Duty, Madras</h3> The court determined that properties listed in schedules B, C, and D, considered joint family assets under a partition agreement, were not subject to ... - Issues:Interpretation of a partition agreement involving joint family properties and separate acquisitions, determination of whether properties should be included in the deceased's estate under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, regarding the inclusion of properties from a registered deed in the estate of the deceased. The deceased, Annadurai Aiyangar, left behind joint family properties and separate acquisitions. The applicant, one of the sons, claimed certain properties exclusively belonged to him, while others were joint family properties. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty included the properties in question in the estate, considering the deed as a settlement. The Central Board of Revenue upheld this decision, applying section 10 of the Act. The court analyzed the 1949 partition agreement, which purported to merge separate properties into joint family assets. The court emphasized the distinction between joint family properties and separate acquisitions, highlighting the father's authority to declare separate assets as joint family property. The court concluded that the properties in schedules B, C, and D, being joint family assets, could not be considered gifts or settlements under section 10.The court scrutinized the document's language and intent, emphasizing that joint family properties cannot be disposed of by gift or settlement. The court noted that the deed did not effect a partition among coparceners but rather allocated property enjoyment without a clear division. The court held that the deceased possessed a fourth share in joint family properties, which alone could pass under the Act. The court rejected the application of section 10 to the case, as the properties were treated as joint family assets and not subject to individual gifting or settlement. Ultimately, the court ruled that the properties in schedules B, C, and D should not be included in the deceased's estate under section 10, awarding costs to the applicant.
TaxTMI 
