TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness as contractors. It is the accountable person's case that the partnership deed itself provided that the legal heirs of the deceased will not be entitled to a share in the goodwill on the death or retirement of a partner. It is, therefore, claimed that in such circumstances the share of goodwill could not be included even as held by the Gujarat High Court in CED v. Babubhai Harjivandas [1981] 129 ITR 276 and the Gauhati High Court in CED v. Kanta Devi Taneja [1981] 132 ITR 437. Alternatively, it was contended that the business being that of a contractor who gets work on lowest tender, it cannot have any goodwill. As a further alternative, it was contended that the adoption of the goodwill at one year's average super profits is excessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessive cannot be accepted for the same reasons stated in the said order. The very existence of considerable super profits is a pointer to the existence of goodwill as well. We are not in a position to accept the assessee's contention that a firm of contractors cannot have any goodwill. We are also not in a position, on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case, to find that the adoption of one year's super profits as goodwill is excessive. The estimate adopted is very conservative especially when it is considered that the index adopted is super profits after allowance of reasonable remuneration to partners and interest on capital. The same yard stick was adopted in the decision of this Tribunal, referred to earlier in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d interest, while the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Kedia v. CED [1976] 104 ITR 302 directly dealt with the question of valuation as between the date of gift and the date of death and decided in favour of the revenue. He strongly relied upon the decision and also the commentary of the learned author, V. Balasubramanyam, at pages 110 and 111 of Fourth edition. The learned counsel for the accountable person, however, strongly relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P. Subramaniam's case and the other decisions mentioned by the first appellate authority. He claimed that the law justifies inclusion only at the value as on the date of gift. 5. We have carefully considered the records as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all. Indian laws of estate duty closely follows that of United Kingdom in this regard. On an identical issue, the House of Lords held in Sneddon v. Lord Advocate [1954] 25 ITR (ED) 6, that the relevant date of valuation is date of death and not the date of gift. Sneddon's case followed an earlier decision in the case of Lord Strathcona v. Inland Revenue [1929] SC 800. The Kerala High Court in P. Gangadharan Pillai's case and T.O. Hydrose v. CED [1971] 81 ITR 745 followed the reasoning in Sneddon's case after citing the above cases. The first appellate authority was wrong in assuming that the Kerala High Court in the case of P. Gangadharan Pillai supported the accountable person's case. In that case, valuation as on date of death became comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
