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>Partial Partition Doesn't Sever Joint Family Status</h1> <h3>KALLAKURI NAGESWARARAO. Versus ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY.</h3> KALLAKURI NAGESWARARAO. Versus ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY. - TTJ 046, 413, Issues Involved:1. Whether severance in status took place between late Sri K. Subramanyeswara Rao and his three sons.2. Whether there was a disruption of the joint family headed by Sri K. Subramanyeswara Rao on 31st March, 1963.3. Whether the lineal descendants' share was liable to be included for rate purposes under Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether severance in status took place between late Sri K. Subramanyeswara Rao and his three sons:The accountable person argued that severance in status had been settled from 31st March, 1963, and that from that date, there was no joint family as such. The members of the erstwhile joint family were divided and enjoying their respective shares in the joint family properties as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. The accountable person relied on a narration in the account books of Sri Ramakrishna Silk Palace, Amalapuram, dated 31st March, 1963, which purportedly evidenced this division. However, the Revenue contended that the narration did not spell out a complete division in status and lacked the intention to sever the joint family status or to live apart as divided members.2. Whether there was a disruption of the joint family headed by Sri K. Subramanyeswara Rao on 31st March, 1963:The Tribunal examined the impugned narration in Telugu and its English translation. The narration indicated that the members of the erstwhile joint family became divided only with reference to their assets or interest in the firm Sri Ramakrishna Silk Palace, Amalapuram. It evidenced only a partial partition with reference to some of the assets of the firm. The Tribunal found no intention on the part of the four members to disrupt the whole joint family or to live separately from each other. The Tribunal referred to principles from Mulla's Hindu Law and the Kerala High Court decision (AIR 1985 Ker 265), which state that a definite and unequivocal indication of intention to separate is necessary to constitute a partition. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned narration did not meet this criterion.3. Whether the lineal descendants' share was liable to be included for rate purposes under Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act:The Tribunal held that the impugned narration did not bring about a division in status. The integrity of the family was still maintained even after 31st March, 1963. Therefore, by the date of the deceased's death, the joint family in which the deceased was a member still existed. Consequently, the lineal descendant's share was liable to be added under Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act for aggregation.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that there was no severance in status or disruption of the joint family on 31st March, 1963. The partial partition of some assets did not equate to a complete division in status. As a result, the lineal descendants' share was rightly included for rate purposes under Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act. The appeal filed by the accountable person was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
