Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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

        Court rules Rs. 42,000 compensation not liable for estate duty.

        Controller Of Estate-Duty, Patiala Versus Smt. Motia Rani Malhotra

        Controller Of Estate-Duty, Patiala Versus Smt. Motia Rani Malhotra - [1975] 98 ITR 42 Issues Involved:
        1. Whether the sum of Rs. 42,000 received by the dependants was liable to estate duty.

        Detailed Analysis:

        Issue 1: Whether the sum of Rs. 42,000 received by the dependants was liable to estate duty.

        The primary question referred for the court's opinion was whether the sum of Rs. 42,000 received by the dependants of the deceased was liable to estate duty. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Jullundur, had included this amount in the estate of the deceased, arguing that it was property that passed on the death of the deceased. The Assistant Controller reasoned that the compensation was directly linked to the rights of the deceased as a fare-paying passenger, which converted into a right to receive compensation upon his death, thus making it part of the estate.

        Upon appeal, the Zonal Appellate Controller disagreed with this view, stating that the compensation was not receivable by the deceased but by his heirs upon his death. The Appellate Controller cited Nanavati's Treatise on Estate Duty and the decision in Feay v. Barnwell, concluding that such compensation was not taxable as it did not form part of the deceased's estate.

        The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Zonal Appellate Controller's decision, emphasizing that property created on death cannot be subjected to estate duty as it does not pass on death.

        The High Court examined the relevant sections of the Estate Duty Act, particularly section 5 (the charging section), section 2(15) (definition of "property"), and section 2(16) (definition of "property passing on the death"). The court noted that the sum of Rs. 42,000 came into existence only after the death of the deceased and was not in existence during his lifetime.

        The court also analyzed the provisions of the Indian Carriage by Air Act, 1934, which governed the liability of the carrier in the event of death or injury to a passenger. The relevant rules from the First and Second Schedules of the Act indicated that the compensation was payable to specific members of the deceased's family and not to the estate of the deceased.

        The court concluded that the compensation did not form part of the estate passing on the death of the deceased. The court rejected the department's argument that the deceased had created an interest capable of passing on death by purchasing the air ticket. The court also dismissed the applicability of section 15 of the Estate Duty Act, which deals with annuities or other interests provided by the deceased.

        The court supported its conclusion with references to legal treatises and previous decisions, including those from the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which held that compensation under similar statutes did not form part of the estate passing on death.

        Conclusion:
        The High Court answered the referred question in the negative, ruling that the sum of Rs. 42,000 received by the dependants was not liable to estate duty. The court held that the compensation did not form part of the estate of the deceased and thus could not be subjected to estate duty. The assessee was awarded costs assessed at Rs. 250.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found