Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a limited power of appointment under the will enlarged the assessee's life interest into an interest in the corpus of the trust so as to create a separate asset assessable to wealth-tax, and whether only the capitalised value of the life interest could be brought to tax.
Analysis: The trust deed gave the life tenants only a restricted power to vary the shares of their children among the remaindermen; it did not confer any general power to dispose of the trust corpus or to disinherit the grandchildren, who were the ultimate beneficiaries. Such a personal and limited power did not enlarge the life tenant's proprietary interest in the trust property. A life interest restricted to personal enjoyment cannot be treated as absolute ownership, and the mere existence of a power to appoint among remaindermen does not convert that interest into a distinct taxable asset in the corpus. The assessable wealth, therefore, had to be confined to the value of the life interest.
Conclusion: The limited power of appointment did not constitute an asset within the meaning of wealth-tax law, and the assessee was assessable only on the value of her life interest. The questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: A restricted power of appointment among remaindermen does not enlarge a life interest into ownership of the trust corpus or create a separate asset for wealth-tax purposes; only the value of the life interest is taxable.