1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Inheritance Ruling: Clarification on Estate Inclusion & Coparcenary Property Share.</h1> The court affirmed that the amount of Rs. 82,000 was rightfully included in the deceased's estate as property passing on his death under section 10 of the ... Estate Duty, Property Passing On Death Issues:1. Whether the amount of Rs. 82,000 was correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property passing on his death under section 10 of the Estate Duty ActRs.2. Whether the entire coparcenary interest of the deceased in the coparcenary property passed on his deathRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The deceased had entrusted Rs. 3,50,000 to a trust but retained control over Rs. 82,000, utilizing it for his benefit. The Tribunal found that the deceased did not exclude himself from the possession and enjoyment of this amount. The counsel for the accountable person argued that section 12 of the E.D. Act should apply instead of section 10. However, the Department contended that the trust amounted to a gift, making section 10 applicable. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the fact that the deceased retained the benefit of Rs. 82,000, as found by the Tribunal. The reference to a previous case was deemed unhelpful as the deceased did not meet the criteria for exclusion under section 10. Therefore, the court affirmed that Rs. 82,000 was rightfully included in the deceased's estate.Issue 2:The accountable person argued that only the deceased's share of the coparcenary property should pass on his death, not the entire property. Citing Supreme Court decisions, it was contended that the deceased and his wife constituted a Hindu joint family, and only his share should pass on his death. The Department argued that as the deceased was the sole surviving coparcener, the entire coparcenary property passed on his death. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision establishing that a male member along with his wife could constitute a Hindu joint family. Therefore, the court concluded that only the deceased's share in the joint Hindu family, which was half, passed on his death. The court answered the second question in the negative, affirming that only the deceased's share in the joint Hindu family passed on his death.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
