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 properties bequeathed under the will of the assessee's father belonged to the Hindu undivided family and were includible in its net wealth. (ii) Whether an unascertained right to compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 constituted an asset within the meaning of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Issue (i): Whether properties bequeathed under the will of the assessee's father belonged to the Hindu undivided family and were includible in its net wealth.
Analysis: The will was construed as conferring absolute and full rights of disposal on the two sons. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly sections 4, 8 and 30, was applied to hold that a male Hindu governed by Mitakshara law could validly dispose of his interest by testament, and that the property so received by the sons did not necessarily acquire the character of HUF property. The earlier and contrary views on devolution of inherited property were distinguished on the basis that the statutory scheme controlled succession and testamentary disposition in the present context.
Conclusion: The properties bequeathed under the will did not belong to the assessee-HUF and were not assessable in its net wealth.
Issue (ii): Whether an unascertained right to compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 constituted an asset within the meaning of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Analysis: The right to compensation was held to remain inchoate until the compensation assessment roll was prepared and published and the amount payable was determined. Until then, there was no enforceable legal right capable of valuation as an asset under the Wealth-tax Act. The earlier Calcutta decision on the point was treated as binding and followed.
Conclusion: The unascertained right to compensation was not an asset and could not be included in the net wealth of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: Both questions were answered in favour of the assessee, and the reference was disposed of accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Mitakshara coparcener may testamentarily dispose of his interest, and an unascertained or inchoate claim to statutory compensation is not an asset for wealth-tax purposes until it becomes legally determinate.
TaxTMI 
