9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent share. Asstt. CED valued the goodwill from the firm mentioned at No. (1) above at Rs. 9,700 and firm mentioned at No. (2) above at Rs. 85,000. This was done by taking the average of 5 years assessed profits and after allowing deduction of 20 per cent of profits from managerial remuneration and 10 per cent interest on capital. The net super profits so worked out were multiplied by 3 years to arrive at the purchase value of business which an intending purchaser would buy. The accountable person carried the matter to Appl. CED who reduced the goodwill from firm mentioned at (1) above to Rs. 7,800 and from firm mentioned at (2) above to Rs. 33,654. 2. Revenue's first grievance is against Appl. Contlr's direction that besides deduction of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent assessee, for example, trust, high income assessees and assessees with no other income. the ld. counsel for the accountable person pointed out that in Estate Duty, we have to compute the value of property which passes on death and that in the case of share in a Firm, what passes on the partner's death has to be computed by taking into consideration what reaches the Partner's hands and for this purpose, firms' tax has to be deducted for computing the net amount reaching the partner's hands. 3. While there is much force in the submissions of the ld. Deptl. Representative, the view canvassed by the ld. counsel for accountable person is equally plausible and is more equitable. There is much justification for the view that the property p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s commission agents and was operating in the Agricultural Market Yard and had no special advantage and that more than 200 firms were operating in the said yard and according to him, there was no goodwill attached to any shop as grain was a standard item in which different commission agents were dealing and there was nothing personal nor any reputation of any commission agent nor of place nor were the shops owned by the commission agents who were only licences. Having carefully considered the submissions of both sides, we feel that Appl. CED was justified in directing that the multiplier factor of two years purchase be taken instead of 3 years in respect of firm (No. 2) above.
5. The departmental appeal is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
