TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants relief for deceased's share in residential property under s. 33(1)(n) of ED Act</h1> <h3>SILOO HOMEE MISTRY & SOLI HOMEE MISTRY. Versus SECOND ASSTT. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY.</h3> SILOO HOMEE MISTRY & SOLI HOMEE MISTRY. Versus SECOND ASSTT. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY. - TTJ 020, 428, Issues:1. Granting exemption under s. 33(1)(n) of the ED Act for deceased's share in a property exclusively used for residence.2. Interpretation of the term 'exclusively used by the deceased for his residence' under s. 33(1)(n) of the ED Act.Analysis:1. The accountable persons appealed against the Appellate Controller's decision not to grant exemption under s. 33(1)(n) of the ED Act for the deceased's 1/4th share in a property in Baroda. The deceased, a co-owner with his brothers, used the property for residence when on leave from his duties with Air India. The Asstt. CED included the value of the deceased's share in the estate. The Appellate Controller dismissed the appeal, questioning the exclusive use by the deceased for residential purposes. The Tribunal considered the arguments and reversed the lower authorities' decision, granting relief to the accountable persons for the deceased's share used for residence.2. The interpretation of the term 'exclusively used by the deceased for his residence' was crucial in this case. The ld. counsel for the accountable persons referred to legal commentators' opinions to support their argument. The commentators highlighted that the property needed to be exclusively used for residence, not necessarily exclusively by the deceased. They emphasized that the legislative intent was not to deny relief if the deceased resided with family members. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the property should be used exclusively for residential purposes, not necessarily exclusively by the deceased. The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities' decision and granted relief to the accountable persons for the deceased's share in the property used for residence.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of interpreting the term 'exclusively used by the deceased for his residence' under s. 33(1)(n) of the ED Act. The decision highlighted that the property should be used exclusively for residential purposes, not necessarily exclusively by the deceased, to qualify for exemption.
TaxTMI 