Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court upholds Assistant Controller's jurisdiction under Estate Duty Act, dismisses petition, denies writ of prohibition</h1> <h3>KHAN BAHADUR C.K. MAMMAD KOYI Versus ASSISTANT CONTROLLER, ESTATE DUTY -CUM INCOME-TAX CIRCLE, COIMBATORE.</h3> KHAN BAHADUR C.K. MAMMAD KOYI Versus ASSISTANT CONTROLLER, ESTATE DUTY -CUM INCOME-TAX CIRCLE, COIMBATORE. - [1961] 43 ITR (E. D.) 1W (Mad) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty.2. Applicability of Section 7 of the Estate Duty Act to an impartible Moplah tarwad.3. Interpretation of the term 'interest ceasing on death' under Section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act.4. Evaluation of the interest of a deceased member in an impartible tarwad.5. Legal fees in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty:The petitioner challenged the Assistant Controller's decision that the share of the deceased in the tarwad properties is liable to estate duty under Section 7 of the Estate Duty Act. The petitioner contended that this decision was without jurisdiction, illegal, and unjustifiable. The court examined whether the Assistant Controller had the authority to demand estate duty in this context and concluded that the proceedings were not premature, as the notice calling for a return was a valid preliminary step.2. Applicability of Section 7 of the Estate Duty Act to an Impartible Moplah Tarwad:The court analyzed the applicability of Section 7, which deals with interests ceasing on death, to the impartible Moplah tarwad. The court noted that the Moplah Marumakkattayam Act (Madras Act XVII of 1939) allowed for the registration of tarwads as impartible, meaning members could not claim individual shares. However, the court found that this did not exempt the tarwad from the provisions of Section 7 of the Estate Duty Act. The court held that the interest of a deceased member in the tarwad property ceases on death, and this cessation results in a benefit accruing to the surviving members, thereby attracting estate duty under Section 7(1).3. Interpretation of the Term 'Interest Ceasing on Death' Under Section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act:The court examined the phrase 'interest ceasing on death' and concluded that the death of a member of an impartible tarwad results in the cessation of their interest in the property. This cessation leads to an enhancement of the interests of the surviving members, thereby constituting a benefit that accrues by the cesser of such interest. The court rejected the argument that Section 7(1) applies only to Hindu families governed by the Mitakshara, Marumakkattayam, or Aliyasantana law, interpreting the phrase 'including in particular' as an enlargement rather than a restriction of the section's scope.4. Evaluation of the Interest of a Deceased Member in an Impartible Tarwad:The court did not delve into the specifics of how the interest of the deceased should be evaluated for estate duty purposes, as it was not necessary for the resolution of the current petition. The court focused on the broader question of whether the provisions of Section 7(1) applied to the case at hand and concluded affirmatively.5. Legal Fees in Proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution:The court addressed the issue of legal fees, noting that Rule 7(2) of the rules framed under Article 226 of the Constitution prescribes a maximum fee of Rs. 250. However, the court referred to Rule 16 of Order V of the High Court Fees Rules, 1956, which allows for higher fees in cases of special difficulty or importance. The court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to fix a higher fee than Rs. 250 and upheld the fee of Rs. 500 fixed in the present case.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty had jurisdiction to proceed under Section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act. The rule nisi was discharged, and the petitioner was not entitled to a writ of prohibition. The court upheld the legal fee of Rs. 500, considering the special difficulties and importance of the case.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found