TMI Blog1976 (5) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Machinery Company. On November 1, 1951, he gifted to two of his sons who were majors Rs. 20,000 each and took them as partners in his business with the above sum as their capital. The sons were given one-fourth share each and he retained half share. Again, on April 1, 1956, when a third son became major he was also given a gift of Rs. 20,000 and taken as a partner in the business with that money as his capital. He was given one-fourth share and the deceased retained the remaining share till his death which took place on March 14, 1963. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was of the opinion that the deceased was not entirely excluded from the benefits of the gifted amount of Rs. 60,000, inasmuch as the amount was invested in the firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. Sinha, appearing for the assessee, has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of our court in Controller of Estate Duty v. Thanwar Dass [1974] 94 ITR 101 (All) [FB] and has urged that the principle laid down in this decision squarely applied to the question which we are required to answer. Mr. Deokinandan, on the other hand, has placed reliance on Controller of Estate Duty v. Smt. Parvati Ammal [1974] 97 ITR 621 (SC) and Sakarlal Chunilal v. Controller of Estate Duty [1975] 98 ITR 610 (Guj). He has read the decision given by the Gujarat High Court in extenso and urged that this decision lays down the correct principle of applicability of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act. Before a donee can escape the liability fixed under section 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares. Thereafter, on June 25, 1955, he took the property on lease from the sons and carried on business as before. Later on, the deceased gave the boarding house on sub-lease to a third party. These facts would show that the possession and enjoyment of Mayavaram Lodge was not, subsequent to the gift, retained by the donees " to the entire exclusion of the donor or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise ". The facts of this case are entirely different. Here, admittedly, the donor made a gift of Rs. 20,000 to each of his sons who invested their money in the business. The argument of Mr. Deokinandan that as they were not partners of the firm originally the investment by the sons of the money which was gifted to them would amount to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
