TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the value of property thrown by the deceased into the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family was includible in the principal value of the estate under the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
Analysis: The deceased had thrown self-acquired property into the family hotchpot long before the expiry of two years prior to his death. Such an act was treated as a unilateral act and not as a gift in the legal sense. On that basis, section 9 could not apply because the transfer, if any, was not within the prohibited period. Section 10 was also inapplicable because the continued enjoyment of the property by the deceased as a member of the family was consistent with the nature of coparcenary ownership and did not satisfy the statutory requirement of exclusion. Section 13 was held to be directed to joint investment of a different character and not to coparcenary property created by throwing property into the hotchpot. The contention based on section 27 also failed because, even if the act were treated as a disposition in favour of relatives, it would still only amount to a gift, and section 9 was not attracted on the facts.
Conclusion: The property thrown into the hotchpot was not liable to be included in full in the estate, and only the deceased's share was includible. The appellate order was correctly sustained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
