Just a moment...
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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the receipt arising from refund of estate duty with interest was to be treated wholly as capital or revenue, and how its character was affected by the disruption in the joint Hindu family and the subsequent partition between the sharers.
Analysis: The receipt could not be characterised solely by reference either to the decree directing payment of interest or to the book entries in the estate accounts. Prior to the disruption in status, the estate was held as coparcenary property, and the principle governing partition of joint family assets applied so that what was allotted to a sharer partook of the character of capital. After the compromise brought about disruption in status on 17 February 1947, the family ceased to exist as a coparcenary and the common estate was thereafter held by the adopted sons as tenants-in-common. In that altered legal setting, each member acquired a distinct interest in the principal as well as in the interest accruing thereafter, so the character of the receipt had to be determined by reference to the period to which it related.
Conclusion: The receipt was capital to the extent attributable to the period before 17 February 1947 and revenue to the extent attributable to the period after that date.