TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 applied so as to include the sons' shares in the principal value of the estate on the facts of the gift and subsequent partnership arrangement; (ii) whether the Controller could, by civil miscellaneous petition in the reference, seek a further question which the Tribunal had refused to refer, instead of proceeding under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
Issue (i): Whether section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 applied so as to include the sons' shares in the principal value of the estate on the facts of the gift and subsequent partnership arrangement.
Analysis: The gifted property comprised the estates subject to the donor's retained 2/10th undivided interest, and the gift was of a tenancy-in-common rather than a division by metes and bounds. Section 10 is confined to the property actually gifted and to any benefit retained by the donor referable to that gifted property. The sons assumed possession and enjoyment of the gifted shares, and the donor's continued enjoyment of his own retained share was not a benefit reserved out of the gift. The partnership arrangement did not create any material benefit in the gifted shares, since no remuneration was shown to have been paid to the donor as managing partner.
Conclusion: Section 10 was not attracted to the gifted shares, and the inclusion of the sons' shares in the estate was not justified.
Issue (ii): Whether the Controller could, by civil miscellaneous petition in the reference, seek a further question which the Tribunal had refused to refer, instead of proceeding under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
Analysis: When the Tribunal refuses to refer a question on the footing that no question of law arises, the statutory remedy is an application to the High Court under section 64(3) within the prescribed time. That remedy cannot be bypassed by a civil miscellaneous petition in the pending reference to obtain a question not referred by the Tribunal.
Conclusion: The civil miscellaneous petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the accountable person, and the attempt to secure an additional referred question failed for want of the proper statutory remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 applies only to the subject-matter actually gifted and only where the donor retains a benefit referable to that gifted property; a donor's continued enjoyment of his own reserved undivided share does not, by itself, attract the section, and a refused reference question must be pursued under the special statutory remedy under section 64(3).
TaxTMI 
