1976 (10) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, at the instance of the CED, Madras, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 50% of the value of the two house properties at Somasundaram Colony and at Ellis Road, Madurai, should not be included in the dutiable estate of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n them subsequently. The Asst. CED brought 50% of the value of these two properties in the dutiable estate of Dr.Muthurangam on the ground that he owned 50% beneficial interest in the said two items of properties. However, on appeal preferred by the accountable person, the Appellate CED deleted the 50% value of these properties holding that the entire properties belonged to Mrs. Girija Bai. The As....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies must be treated as belonging to her as individual. These are the two circumstances on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the revenue. The Tribunal has, in our opinion, very rightly pointed out that these circumstances will have no value whatever. Even if a part of the earnings of the husband had gone into the acquisition of the properties in question, the real question for considerati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....joyed the usufruct of the income from the properties. The third aspect to be taken note of is that even during the lifetime of Dr.Muthurangam, when Mrs. Girija Bai settled one of the properties in favour of her son on October 24, 1966, Dr. Muthurangam did not join in the execution of the settlement deed. If Dr. Muthurangam had any beneficial interest in the properties, he should have joined in the....