TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the deceased had abandoned his domicile of origin in India and acquired a domicile of choice in Malaya on the date of death; (ii) Whether the accountable person had discharged the onus of proving that the domicile of origin had been superseded by a domicile of choice.
Issue (i): Whether the deceased had abandoned his domicile of origin in India and acquired a domicile of choice in Malaya on the date of death.
Analysis: Domicile of origin continues unless a fixed and settled intention to abandon it and make another country the permanent home is clearly shown. Mere residence abroad, business presence, possession of a foreign passport, foreign citizenship, or a declaration in a will is not conclusive unless supported by circumstances showing animus manendi. The deceased's long stays in Malaya were attributable to business, while his ancestral properties, family residence, Indian connections, and final return to India indicated that the tie with India had not been severed.
Conclusion: The deceased had not acquired a domicile of choice in Malaya and remained domiciled in India; this issue is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the accountable person had discharged the onus of proving that the domicile of origin had been superseded by a domicile of choice.
Analysis: The burden lay on the party asserting loss of the domicile of origin. The Tribunal had relied mainly on selected circumstances such as residence in Malaya, passport, citizenship, and testamentary recital, without evaluating the contrary material. The evidence as a whole did not establish a clear and unequivocal intention to abandon the Indian domicile.
Conclusion: The onus was not discharged; this issue is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The reference questions were answered in the negative, the foreign movable properties remained includible in the dutiable estate, and the Revenue succeeded in the references.
Ratio Decidendi: A change from domicile of origin to domicile of choice is proved only by clear evidence of a fixed intention to make the new country the permanent home, and the burden of proving such abandonment lies on the party asserting it.
TaxTMI 
