TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the release by a coparcener of his undefined share in joint Hindu family movable property amounted to a disposition of property within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, so as to attract estate duty under sections 9 and 27 of that Act. (ii) Whether, on the facts, the deceased widow had only one-sixth share in the movable properties of the Hindu undivided family which passed on her death.
Issue (i): Whether the release by a coparcener of his undefined share in joint Hindu family movable property amounted to a disposition of property within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, so as to attract estate duty under sections 9 and 27 of that Act.
Analysis: The release deed executed by the coparcener extinguished his pre-existing interest in the coparcenary property and correspondingly enlarged the interests of the other coparceners. The statutory definition of property under section 2(15) and Explanation 2 embraces the benefit conferred by extinguishment of a right at the expense of the deceased, and the Act treats such disposition as a gift when made in favour of relatives. The earlier view that an undefined coparcenary share could not be valued was held inconsistent with the Supreme Court's construction of the deeming provision, which applies even where the release is of an inchoate right and no partition by metes and bounds has occurred.
Conclusion: The release amounted to a disposition of property and was exigible to estate duty. The answer to this issue was against the accountable person and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the deceased widow had only one-sixth share in the movable properties of the Hindu undivided family which passed on her death.
Analysis: After the coparcener's release, the movable property stood vested in the widow and the son in equal undivided shares, or alternatively the husband's share devolved on them in equal shares on his death. In either view, the widow acquired only a one-half share in her husband's one-third interest, namely one-sixth in the whole movable property. Since the property remained coparcenary property and no partition had taken place, only that defined share could be said to pass on her death.
Conclusion: The widow had only one-sixth share in the movable properties which passed on her death. This issue was answered against the accountable person and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue; the Tribunal's conclusion was not accepted on the first question, while the inclusion of only one-sixth share in the deceased widow's estate was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A coparcener's relinquishment or release of an undefined interest in joint family property amounts to a deemed disposition where the extinguishment of that right confers a corresponding benefit on the other coparceners, and the resulting share passing on death is confined to the share that has become defined on the facts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
