| Case ID |
d636f16c-3ed8-479b-b982-4728ff8262e0 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
ESTATE DUTY REFERENCE No. 136 OF 1966 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 28, 1971 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the amount of Rs. 48,513, remaining at the date of death of the deceased, was correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property passing or deemed to pass on his death. The court found that the gift made by the deceased to his wife was valid despite being recorded through book entries. It was concluded that the wife had accepted the gift and treated it as her own, thus satisfying the necessary conditions under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act. The decision emphasized that the provisions of section 10 were not applicable since the donee assumed possession and enjoyment of the property to the exclusion of the donor immediately upon the gift, and retained such enjoyment to the entire exclusion of the donor or any benefit to him. |
| Summary |
In the case of Behari Lal Matanhelia v. Controller of Estate Duty, the Allahabad High Court dealt with the interpretation of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The case revolved around the validity of a gift made by the deceased, who transferred a sum of Rs. 51,000 to his wife through book entries in the partnership firm where he was a partner. The key issue was whether the amount returned to the estate of the deceased upon his death could be considered as passing under the estate duty provisions. The court ruled that the wife had accepted the gift as evidenced by her withdrawal of part of the amount, thus establishing her possession and enjoyment of the property, which was critical for determining the applicability of section 10. This case underscores the importance of valid gift transfers and the implications for estate duty assessments, particularly in partnership contexts. Key themes include estate planning, gift tax implications, and legal interpretations of property transfers. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
R.S. Pathak,
H.N. Seth
|
| Lawyers |
P.N. Pachauri for the Appellant,
B.L. Gupta,
Dr. R.R. Misra for the Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Behari Lal Matanhelia
|
| Respondents |
Controller of Estate Duty
|
| Citations |
1972 SLD 582,
(1972) 86 ITR 346
|
| Other Citations |
Cliford John Chick v. CSD [1958] AC 435,
CED v. Aswathanarayana Setty [1969] 72 ITR 29(Mys.),
George Da Costa v. CED [1967] 63 ITR 497,
Gopal Raj Swarup v. CWT [1970] 77 ITR 912 (All.),
H.R. Munro v. CSD [1934] AC 61,
CED v. N.R. Ramarathanam [1969] 74 ITR 432 (Mad.),
Shantaben S. Kapadia v. CED [1969] 73 ITR 171 (Guj.),
Controller of Estate Duty v. Chandravadan Amratlal Bhatt [1969] 73 ITR 416 (Guj.),
CED v. Ronaq Ram Bakshi Ram Gupta [1970] 76 ITR 682 (Punj.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Estate Duty Act, 1953
|
| Sections |
10
|