Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Estate Duty Assessment: Inclusion of Gifted Amount Clarified in Recent Judgment</h1> <h3>CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY. Versus ESTATE OF LATE SHRI KS. RANGAN BY SMT. RADHA AMMAL.</h3> CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY. Versus ESTATE OF LATE SHRI KS. RANGAN BY SMT. RADHA AMMAL. - TTJ 011, 534, Issues:Estate duty assessment of late Shri K.S. Rangan - Inclusion of gifted amount in property passing under s. 8 of the ED Act - Disallowance of debt due to donee - Interpretation of provisions of s. 46(2) and s. 46(1)(a) - Double addition claim - Application of s. 44 and s. 46 in relation to debt deduction - Comparison of Indian and English Acts - Allowance of gift-tax paid on gifted property in estate duty assessment.Detailed Analysis:The judgment pertains to an estate duty assessment concerning the late Shri K.S. Rangan, who gifted Rs. 10,000 to his brother's son within two years of his death. The Asst. CED included this amount in the property passing under s. 8 of the ED Act, as it was retained by the deceased in his business, making it a debt due to the donee. The Asstt. Controller disallowed this debt, resulting in an addition of Rs. 10,000 to the assessment, which was challenged in the present departmental appeal.The appeal raised questions regarding the application of provisions under s. 46(2) and s. 46(1)(a) of the ED Act. The dispute centered around the non-allowance of the debt owed to the donee, with the Department arguing that the inclusion of the gifted amount did not warrant automatic debt allowance under different sections of the Act. The claim of double addition was contested by the assessee, citing a Tribunal decision in support of their case.The judgment delves into the provisions of s. 46, particularly sub-clause (a) of s. 46(1), which addresses deductions for debts and encumbrances created by the deceased. The limitation imposed by s. 46 on deductions under s. 44 is highlighted, emphasizing the need for full consideration in money or money's worth for the deceased's benefit. The analysis aims to clarify the distinction between the inclusion of property passing on death and the disallowance of debt claims, even if the amounts involved are the same.The judgment discusses the relevance of English legal principles in interpreting the Indian Estate Duty Act, drawing parallels between the two legal frameworks. It underscores the importance of judicial decisions from England in guiding the interpretation of similar provisions in the Indian context, with caution exercised in applying foreign precedents. The judgment elucidates the differences between the Indian and English Acts, emphasizing the specific provisions and allowances unique to the Indian legislation.Furthermore, the judgment addresses the issue of double taxation and double addition, highlighting the absence of a constitutional prohibition against double taxation. It underscores the compensation provided under the Indian Act for gift-tax paid on the gifted property, which precludes the claim of double addition in the present case. The equitable considerations and statutory provisions are analyzed to justify the disallowance of the debt claim related to the gifted amount, ultimately upholding the Asstt. Controller's order and allowing the departmental appeal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found