1991 (3) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty to gift-tax of Rs. 24,665 is an allowable deduction in computing the principal value of the estate of the deceased ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the 1/3 share of the deceased's son in the joint family properties cannot be taken into account for the purpose of rate of estate duty ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of Explanation II(i) and (ii)(e) of rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts paid by way of advance tax and tax deducted at source should be deducted from the total assets while determining the value of the shares held by the de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es of the case, the Tribunal was justified in admitting an additional ground of appeal filed by the accountable person claiming deduction on account of estate duty liability from the principal value of the estate of the deceased which was never raised by the accountable person before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty or the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty in the course of assessment or appeal proceedings before them ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the estate duty payable in respect of the estate of the deceased should be deducted in the computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased ?" When the reference was called out for hearing, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that, in view of our answer to question No. 5 in the case of Smt. C. D. Morarji, and question No. 4 in the case of Smt. U. D. Morarji, questions Nos. 4 and 3 in the respective cases had become only of academic interest and need not, therefore, be answered. All the above questions are so answered. This takes us to question No. 1 in the case of Smt. U. D. Morarji. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the deceased inherited the property in question from his father and the property was, thus, ancestral property in his hands. At the time of inheritance and also at the time of death, the deceased had no son, son's son or son's son's son. His family comprised himself, his wife and his unmarried daughter. The short question that arose ....