https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39881 Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act applied where the donees did not obtain bona fide possession and enjoyment to the entire exclusion of the donor. Cash gifts of Rs. 60,000 were later invested in a firm in which the deceased was a partner; because a firm has no separate legal personality from its partners, possession through the firm was treated as possession by the partners, so the donor was not wholly excluded. That amount was therefore includible in the estate. The remaining Rs. 25,000 turned on an unresolved factual issue: whether it was an outright cash gift or a book-entry transfer in the firm's accounts. If it was a cash gift, the same section 10 reasoning would apply; if it was a book-entry transfer, the legal position could differ. The actionable claim argument failed absent compliance with section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:05:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39881 Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act applied where the donees did not obtain bona fide possession and enjoyment to the entire exclusion of the donor. Cash gifts of Rs. 60,000 were later invested in a firm in which the deceased was a partner; because a firm has no separate legal personality from its partners, possession through the firm was treated as possession by the partners, so the donor was not wholly excluded. That amount was therefore includible in the estate. The remaining Rs. 25,000 turned on an unresolved factual issue: whether it was an outright cash gift or a book-entry transfer in the firm's accounts. If it was a cash gift, the same section 10 reasoning would apply; if it was a book-entry transfer, the legal position could differ. The actionable claim argument failed absent compliance with section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39881