Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1983 (12) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deduction in computing the principal value of the estate. The petitioners also claimed that from the estate duty payable, the probate duty payable should be deducted. The petitioners paid an amount of Rs. 6,35,650 as estate duty on the basis of the return. The respondent No. 1 passed a provisional assessment order dated September 21, 1979, under s. 57(1) of the Act without taking into account the deductions claimed by the petitioners. Respondent No. valued the estate of the deceased at Rs. 47,69,584 and determined the estate duty payable at Rs. 30,26,146.40. Respondent No. 1 by notice dated September 21, 1979, raised a demand of Rs. 30,13,660.69. As the petitioners failed to pay the amount demanded by the notice, respondent No. 1 issued n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....yable by the person delivering the account on the basis of the account so delivered." The learned counsel urged that the provisional assessment made under s. 57(1) of the Act is summary in nature and the Assistant CED is not bound to make any inquiry before making such assessment. The object of assessment is to collect tax from certain classes of assessees before the regular assessment. Shri Mehta submits that the provisional assessment being summary in nature and without requiring the controlling authority to hold any inquiry and as there is no right to the assessee to prefer any appeal against the provisional assessment, it must be held that the Controller must pass the order of provisional assessment only on the basis of the accounts de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... nor whether the allowances or deductions claimed are admissible. If there be discrepancy between the return made and the accounts and documents accompanying the return, the Income-tax Officer may ask the assessee to explain the discrepancy, but he must make a provisional assessment on the basis of the return initially made or clarified and the accounts and documents filed. He cannot make a provisional assessment by holding that certain claims made by the assessee are in law unjustified." Shri Mehta submits, and in my judgment correctly, that the petitioners raised disputed questions of law as to whether the petitioners are entitled to claim deductions in respect of (1) estate duty liability, and (2) the amount paid as probate duty and the....