| Case ID |
166741f2-0bcb-436f-b8b0-40407958559a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1990 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The case revolves around the estate duty implications of the death of the sixth baronet in connection with the Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronetcy Fund. The court determined that the property passing on the death of the deceased was not the corpus of the baronetcy trust fund but rather the actuarial value of the beneficial interest of both the deceased baronet and his wife. The court found that the corpus remained with the trustees and was not chargeable to estate duty under the relevant sections of the Estate Duty Act. The decision was made in favor of the accountable person, confirming that the estate duty would apply only to the actuarial value of the interests that passed on death, not the entirety of the trust fund. |
| Summary |
In this pivotal case decided by the Bombay High Court, the court examined the implications of estate duty on the Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronetcy Fund following the death of the sixth baronet. The key legal issue addressed was whether the corpus of the trust fund should be included in the estate duty valuation or if it was limited to the actuarial value of the deceased's beneficial interest. The court concluded that the corpus of the baronetcy trust fund did not pass on death under the Estate Duty Act, thus not incurring estate duty. This decision is significant as it clarifies the interpretation of property passing under the Estate Duty Act and the valuation of beneficial interests, setting a precedent for similar future cases. The case highlights the importance of understanding the legal distinctions between corpus and beneficial interests in estate planning and tax implications. |
| Court |
Bombay High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronetcy Trust
|
| Judges |
Mrs. Sujata Manohar,
T.D. Sugla
|
| Lawyers |
G.S. Jetley,
S.E. Dastur,
Jahangir Mistry
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Controller of Estate Duty,
Official Trustee, Maharashtra State
|
| Citations |
1990 SLD 2227,
(1990) 186 ITR 463
|
| Other Citations |
Attorney-General v. Eyres [1909] 1 KB 723,
Attorney-General v. Watson [1917] 2KB 427,
Cassel's Will Trusts, In re [1946] 1 All ER 32; [1947] Ch. D. 1,
CIT v. V. Damodaran [1980] 121 ITR 572 (SC),
CED v. Fakirchand Fatehchand Sachdev [1982] 134 ITR 268(Bom.),
CED v. Hussainbhai Mohamedbhai Badri [1973] 90 ITR 148 (SC),
Great Western Railway Co. v. Bater [1920] 3 KB 266,
Harris's Will Trusts, In re [1966] 1 Ch. D. 475; [1966] 1 All ER 677,
Smt. Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana, AIR 1970 SC 694,
Khatizabai Mohomed Ibrahim v. CED [1959] 37 ITR (ED) 53 (Bom.),
S.C. Sree Manavikraman Raja v. CED [1957] 32 ITR (ED) 1 (Mad.),
Manian Natesan v. CED [1965] 56 ITR (ED) 5 (Mad.),
McMillan v. Guest [1942] 1 All ER 606 (HL),
Public Trustee v. Attorney-General [1946] 1 All ER 32; [1947] Ch. 1,
Public Trustee v. Hurt [1966] 1 Ch 475; 1 All. ER 677
|
| Laws Involved |
Estate Duty Act 1953
|
| Sections |
40,
5,
7
|