| Case ID |
00f71fe3-7c8d-439b-b2cb-13e48715936e |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
ESTATE DUTY REFERENCE No. 1 OF 1967 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 02, 1969 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the compensation payable under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, was indeed property that passed on the death of the deceased, thus making it liable for estate duty under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The right to receive such compensation was deemed to be a vested interest and an indefeasible statutory right, thus inheritable and transferable. The valuation of the compensation was to be conducted based on its market price at the time of death, even if the amount was not definitively determined at that time. The court affirmed the decision of the revenue authorities that the amounts in question were correctly included in the principal value of the estates for the purposes of estate duty. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of property under the Estate Duty Act, focusing on compensation due to displaced persons under the 1954 Act. The court examined whether compensation rights constituted property passing on death, relevant to estate duty. The decision emphasized the broad definition of property, including contingent and indefeasible rights to compensation. It highlighted that even if the precise compensation amount was undetermined at the time of death, the right to receive compensation was property under the law, thus liable for estate duty. This case is significant for understanding how compensation rights are treated in estate law, particularly for displaced persons, and sets a precedent for future cases involving statutory compensation rights. Keywords: estate duty, property passing, compensation rights, statutory rights, displaced persons. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
S.N. Andley,
V.S. Deshpande,
M.R.A. Ansari
|
| Lawyers |
B.N. Kirpal,
Roshan Lal Roshan
|
| Petitioners |
Dewan Labh Chand
|
| Respondents |
Controller of Estate Duty
|
| Citations |
1972 SLD 397 = (1972) 83 ITR 538
|
| Other Citations |
Amar Singh v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab AIR 1957 SC 599,
Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 WLR 163 (HL),
Attorney-General v. John Brunning [1860] 8 HL. Cas. 242,
Attorney-General v. Quixley [1929] 141 LT 288 (CA),
Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Madras v. Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 603 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Estate Duty Act, 1953
|
| Sections |
5,
6,
36
|