TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of rule 1BB of the Wealth tax Rules, 1957? Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not applying multiple of ten on the net maintainable rent while computing value of Nahata Bhawan? Whether the Tribunal was right in law in determining interest of the deceased in Nahata Bhawan at Rs. 2 lakhs?" In the case in hand, the facts are that one Shri Prakashmal Nahata died on September 6, 1970. There are eight accountable persons. Smt. Urmila Nahata was the wife of the deceased and she filed the estate duty return in respect of the properties, which according to her belong to her husband, on which estate duty was payable. The said accountable person has declared 1/3rd share in Nahata Bhawan, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, at Rs. 98,000, which includ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has valued the property to the tune of Rs. 6,30,000 and the share of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,10,000. In appeal before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, the view taken by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty has been affirmed. Even the Tribunal also has affirmed the conclusion reached by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty that the deceased, Prakashmal Nahata was having 1/3rd share in the Nahata Bhawan and on his death the property passes to the heirs of Prakashmal Nahata. The value also has not been disturbed by all the three authorities. Thereafter a miscellaneous application has been moved by the accountable persons that the property in question be valued as per rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules and multiplier should be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nmal Nahata, however, contests that the said property did not pass on the death of Prakashmal. The order of the Tribunal "in wealth-tax appeals shows that on the consideration of clauses 3, 5, 10 and 15 of the trust deed, Bombay Bench 'C' of the Tribunal had held vide its order dated August 8, 1959, that the trust was a revocable trust within the meaning of the first proviso to section 16(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and, therefore, the trustees would not be assessable in their capacities as trustees or beneficiaries but in their capacities as settlors or transferors. Delhi Bench 'B' of the Tribunal vide its order dated May 3, 1969, in wealth-tax appeals held that the Revenue was not justified in making, assessments by applying....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under: "The petitioner for probate is obliged, by virtue of item 10 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, to pay court fees on the value of the property in respect of which the grant is sought. Where such property is a house, its value, i.e., the price it would fetch if sold in the open market, on the date of the death must be determined in the same manner as it would for the purpose of estate duty, that is to say, by an application of the principles laid down in rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, made under the Wealth-tax Act 1957." Considering the facts specially when no specific rule or provision is under the Estate Duty Act for valuing the property, which passes to the accountable persons, rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax R....