9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the amounts of Rs. 31,000 and Rs. 51,000 given to the sons were gifts or not. 2. Whether the provisions of section 10 could be applied in respect of the said sums by reason of their investment in a partnership. Analysis: The judgment of the High Court of Bombay pertained to the assessment under the Estate Duty Act following the demise of an individual. The deceased, a self-made businessman, had given sums of Rs. 31,000 and Rs. 51,000 to his sons on specific dates, accompanied by relinquishment deeds. The question was whether these amounts constituted gifts and if they should be included in the deceased's estate. The Assistant CED included the properties in the assessment under section 10 of the Act, arguing that the deceased had not entirely excluded himself from their enjoyment due to the investment in a partnership where he was also a partner. The Appellate Controller upheld this decision, leading to a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the transactions were not gifts. However, on the issue of applying section 10, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue. Subsequently, an application was made to the High Court for a reference. The High Court analyzed the documents, styled as relinquishment deeds, and emphasized the importance of their content in determining the nature of the transactions. The deeds contained recitals indicating disputes between the parties and the transfer of amounts with conditions attached. The High Court highlighted that for a transaction to be considered a gift, it must be without consideration, except for love and affection in certain cases. If any consideration is present, the transaction cannot be classified as a gift. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's finding that there was mutual benefit in the transactions, as they aimed to settle disputes and enable the sons to start their own business. Therefore, the Court concluded that the amounts were not gifts. Consequently, the first question was answered in the negative against the Revenue, and the second question was deemed unnecessary for consideration. The Court awarded costs of the reference to the assessee.
|
