1973 (10) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the inclusion of Rs. 15,000 which was a deposit made by the donee in the firm of Messrs. T. Govinda Rao and Sons as property belonging to the deceased by applying the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is valid in law ? " - question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and against the accountable person. Question No. 2 is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it made by the donee in the firm of Messrs. T. Govinda Rao and Sons as property belonging to the deceased by applying the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is valid in law ? " One Govinda Rao, the deceased, who died on July 27, 1967, was a partner in a firm called " M/s. T. Govinda Rao Sons, Raichur ". The accountable person contested the inclusion of several items of asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mes of Kasibai and Govinda Rao jointly. In the case of gift to Sunitabai the fixed deposit was in the names of Sunitabai and Govinda Rao. The fixed deposits with the accrued interest were together again and again deposited in the said joint names of the deceased and each of his daughters. The principal and interest accrued in each case amounted to Rs. 14,048 and thus the total amounted to Rs. 28,0 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herefore, the argument in the form, it was urged before us cannot be permitted to be raised in this reference as it does not arise on the question referred. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the accountable person that Govinda Rao had acted as a guardian of his minor daughters in taking the deposits in the joint names. It is seen from the undisputed facts that the fixed deposits w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssioner of Income-tax and Controller of Estate Duty v. N. R. Ramarathnam. The second question referred is concluded by the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court. For the reasons stated above, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and against the accountable person. Question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. In the circumstances, parties are d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X