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 Upholds Decision on Estate Duty Appeal, Rejects Revenue's Challenge</h1> <h3>CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY. Versus LATE P. RICABCHAND.</h3> CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY. Versus LATE P. RICABCHAND. - TTJ 009, 562, Issues:1. Whether the act of deceased throwing individual property into the joint family constitutes a 'disposition' under the Estate Duty Act.2. Whether the decision in A.N.K. Rajamani Ammal's case by the Madras High Court has been overruled by the Supreme Court.3. Whether the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty's decision was correct in accepting the accountable person's claim based on the Rajamani Ammal's case.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The appeal concerns the estate duty account of the deceased, where the Assistant Controller included the entire value of the property in the estate, considering it a disposition. The Appellate Controller, however, based on the ruling in A.N.K. Rajamani Ammal's case, held that there was no disposition and only a portion of the amount should be retained. The central question is whether the act of the deceased throwing individual property into the joint family constitutes a disposition under the Estate Duty Act.Issue 2: The Revenue contended that the Supreme Court's decision in a specific case impliedly overruled the Madras High Court's decision in Rajamani Ammal's case. However, the Tribunal found that the facts in the two cases were different, and the Supreme Court did not address the specific scenario of a unilateral act of throwing individual property into the joint family. The Tribunal concluded that the decision in Rajamani Ammal's case remains the direct authority on this issue.Issue 3: The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, emphasizing that the Supreme Court did not overrule the Madras High Court's decision in Rajamani Ammal's case. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the Appellate Controller's order, as it was based on the established legal precedent. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the accountable person's claim regarding the estate duty assessment.
TaxTMI 