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's one-third share in the partnership, which owned immovable properties outside India, was includible to estate duty as movable property. (ii) Whether rule 7(c) of the Estate Duty Rules, 1953 was ultra vires the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
Issue (i): Whether the deceased's one-third share in the partnership, which owned immovable properties outside India, was includible to estate duty as movable property.
Analysis: The properties originally belonged to the Hindu undivided family, but the family had been disrupted and a partnership was thereafter constituted. On the findings recorded, the immovable properties became partnership assets when they were brought into the firm with the intention that they should form part of the stock of the partnership. Under the general law of partnership, property introduced into the firm becomes partnership property without the need for a formal conveyance. A partner's share in the partnership is distinct from a direct share in the immovable assets of the firm, and such share is treated as movable property. Once the deceased's interest is characterised as a partnership share, its inclusion in the principal value of the estate follows under the charging provision.
Conclusion: The inclusion of the deceased's share in the estate duty valuation as movable property was correct in law and was in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether rule 7(c) of the Estate Duty Rules, 1953 was ultra vires the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
Analysis: The rule was held to be consistent with the statutory scheme governing estate duty and the power conferred on the rule-making authority. It did not contradict the exemption relating to foreign immovable property, because the subject of charge was the deceased's partnership interest, which is movable property, and not a direct levy on the foreign immovable property itself. The rule merely reflected the legal character of a partner's share and the situs principles applicable to movable and immovable property.
Conclusion: Rule 7(c) of the Estate Duty Rules, 1953 was intra vires and was in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee, the valuation adopted by the Revenue was upheld, and the rule challenged by the assessee was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A partner's share in a partnership is movable property even if the firm owns immovable assets, and a rule treating that share accordingly is valid where it accords with the statutory rule-making power and the general law of partnership.
TaxTMI 
