TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (7) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ject to a maximum of Rs. 45,000..." 3. The commission payable to the deceased on the date of death was as follows: Rs. Commission for the calendar year 1980 (1-1-1980 to 31-12-1980) 45,000 &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....untable person had included Rs. 45,000 in the return but had not included Rs. 7,500. According to her, the said amount was not due to the deceased on the date of death (19-2-1981) and that the said amount had become due on 31-12-1981, at the end of the accounting year and, as such, said amount did not represent property passing on death. Reliance was placed on certain decisions which we shall consider presently in this order. The Assistant Controller rejected this plea and included the said amount of Rs. 7,500 in the property passing on death. Before the Controller (Appeals), the accountable person raised the plea that the whole amount of Rs. 52,500 was not includible because the accounts of the years 1980 and 1981 of the employer-company had been finalised after the death of the assessee and before such finalisation, the accountable person had no beneficial interest in the commission. This plea was not sustained by the Controller (Appeals), who held that commission became payable as soon as services had been rendered and that the fact that quantification took place subsequently was immaterial. The accountable person has raised the same contention now before us. 5. We have already....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h. The right to receive commission constitutes property in praesenti although the commission is to be quantified and to be actually received on a future date and this property would certainly pass on the death of the deceased and the value thereof would be liable to be included for calculating the estate duty. We, therefore, confirm the order of the Controller (Appeals) on this point. 7. The next point raised is that the Controller (Appeals) had erred in holding that the deceased's interest in the properties of an HUF (smaller) of which the deceased was the karta and coparcener, is, and extends to, whole of the properties of the said HUF rejecting the assessee's stand that only one-half of the value of the properties would be deemed to pass under section 7 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act') or under any other provisions of the Act. On the date of death, the smaller-HUF consisted of the deceased, his wife and his daughter. There was no son. The deceased was sole surviving coparcener. The wife and daughter had no right to demand partition. Consequently, the whole property would pass on his death. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned representative for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as such, there was no question of his wife getting any share. The principle laid down in that decision would not be applicable in the present case where the deceased was sole surviving coparcener. This ground is, therefore, rejected. 9. The fourth ground is that the Controller (Appeals) had erred in holding that no deduction should be made towards an estimated charge by way of maintenance of the widow of the deceased, from the value of the properties of an HUF (bigger) as also properties of an HUF (smaller) of which the deceased was the karta and coparcener, whilst determining the amount of share of the deceased in the properties of the said joint families under section 7 read with section 39. On behalf of the accountable person reliance was placed on the decision in CED v. Dr. B. Kamalamma [1984] 148 ITR 434 (Mad.). In that case deduction for certain sum representing provision for the marriage of the daughter of the deceased was allowed from the principal value of the estate, on the ground that the obligation was enforceable against the ancestral property which the deceased has possessed. This principle laid down in that decision would not be applicable in the present case. In o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y by reason of the death of the deceased. Consequently, according to the learned representative for the assessee, the stock exchange quotation on the date of death of the deceased should not be taken as fair market value of the shares of the said company. The stock exchange quotation on that date, according to him, did not reflect the real value of those shares. This was proved by subsequent steep fall in the value of the shares. The submission, therefore, was that the value estimated by the Assistant Controller in respect of the shares of the said company held by the HUF (bigger) and the HUF (smaller) of the assessee was abnormally high and, as such, the said value should be revised. 11. The learned representative for the assessee filed stock exchange quotations of the price of the shares of the said company from 2-1-1981 to 31-3-1982. These quotations indicated that from 3-1-1981 to 19-2-1981, the fluctuation in the value of the shares was very small. It ranged between Rs. 36 and Rs. 38 per share. However, from 22-4-1981, there was continuous fall in the price of the shares and ultimately on 31-3-1982, the price was Rs. 23 per share. He filed quotations of price of various other....