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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Tribunal rules on property valuation, HUF assets, descendants' shares, royalties, jewellery, and shares</h1> <h3>PREM TANNAN. Versus FIRST ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY.</h3> The Tribunal partially allowed both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals. It directed the valuation of properties, inclusion of HUF assets, ... - Issues Involved:1. Valuation of immovable property.2. Inclusion of HUF assets in the estate.3. Inclusion of lineal descendants' share.4. Valuation of royalty rights.5. Valuation of jewellery and silverware.6. Valuation of shares in a private company.Detailed Analysis:1. Valuation of Immovable Property:The deceased owned a double-storeyed residential house in New Delhi and a residential flat in Bombay. The valuer for the assessee estimated the New Delhi property at Rs. 2,34,500, while the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (ACED) valued it at Rs. 3,12,900 based on the wealth-tax assessment. The Appellate Controller accepted the valuation of Rs. 2,34,500, noting it was capitalized based on rent. For the Bombay flat, the accountable person valued it at Rs. 1,63,546, while the ACED valued it at Rs. 3,28,968. The Appellate Controller confirmed this valuation. The Tribunal directed that both properties be valued under Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, following the precedent set in Jehangir Mohd Ali Chagla & Anr. vs. M.V. Subrahamanian.2. Inclusion of HUF Assets in the Estate:The ACED included 45% of the HUF assets in the estate, arguing that the deceased had impressed his self-acquired assets with the character of HUF. The Appellate Controller held that sections 10 and 13 of the Estate Duty Act did not apply, as the deceased did not retain any benefit in the assets nor made any joint investment. This was supported by the precedent in Goli Eswariah vs. CGT and CED vs. Satyanarayan Babulal Chourasia. The Tribunal upheld this decision, confirming that the entire assets of the HUF were not includible in the estate.3. Inclusion of Lineal Descendants' Share:The ACED included the value of the lineal descendants' share at Rs. 1,97,374. The Appellate Controller upheld this inclusion, relying on the constitutional validity of section 34 of the Estate Duty Act as confirmed by various High Courts. The Tribunal also upheld this constitutional validity. However, it directed that only 2/9th share of the lineal descendants, including the deceased's son and grandson, should be aggregated for rate purposes, following the interpretation in Gurupud Khandappa Magdum vs. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF) vs. CIT.4. Valuation of Royalty Rights:The deceased had rights in the royalty from a book valued by the accountable person at Rs. 25,000, while the ACED valued it at Rs. 1 lakh. The Appellate Controller accepted the lower valuation without reasons. Considering the royalty received in previous years, the Tribunal valued the royalty rights at Rs. 50,000.5. Valuation of Jewellery and Silverware:The accountable person declared the jewellery and silverware at Rs. 18,500 based on previous wealth-tax returns. The Appellate Controller accepted the submission that nothing was found at the time of death, supported by the CWT's order for the assessment year 1975-76. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of this asset.6. Valuation of Shares in a Private Company:The deceased owned shares in Capsulation Services P. Ltd., which the ACED valued at Rs. 26.15 per share using Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules. The Appellate Controller upheld this application. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's guidelines in CWT vs. Mahadev Jalan, which preferred the yield method over the break-up method unless the company was ripe for winding up. Despite the revenue's contentions, the Tribunal directed that the shares be valued at Rs. 20 per share based on the financial position of the company and relevant precedents.Conclusion:The Tribunal partially allowed both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals, making specific directions regarding the valuation of properties, inclusion of HUF assets, aggregation of lineal descendants' shares, and valuation of royalties, jewellery, and shares.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found