TMI Blog1973 (7) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he deceased before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Madras. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 6,46,434 and the estate duty payable thereon at Rs. 79,727. The accountable persons questioned the said determination of the principal value and contended that out of the principal value of Rs. 6,46,434 a sum of Rs. 4,66,373 represented the value of the deceased's share in foreign immovable properties and, therefore, the inclusion of the said value in the principal value was not proper. But it was found by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty that the deceased and his two sons, who originally constituted a Hindu undivided family, owned extensive properties in India and abroad and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foreign immovable property from duty. It was also urged by the assessee that the immovable properties were not, in fact, the assets of the partnership, but were only managed by the firm for the sake of convenience. Dealing with the above contentions the Board found that, though the immovable properties originally formed part of the assets of the joint family consisting of the deceased and his two sons, on the constitution of a partnership on 13th April, 1954, the properties became the partnership assets, that the deceased and his two sons had earlier declared on 12th May, 1954, by a deed of declaration of trust, that they had entered into a partnership after division of the joint family assets, that each of the parties was entitled to a on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the first time on 13th April, 1954, by the deceased and his two sons as partners, that there was a division of the joint family between the deceased and his two sons even before constituting the firm, and it is only thereafter they brought in their assets into the partnership and that this was clear from the deed of declaration of the trust executed by the deceased and his sons on 12th May, 1954. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that there is no regular deed of conveyance under which the properties are transferred to the partnership, that in the absence of any such conveyance, the property should be deemed to be either the joint family assets or the assets of the three individuals, and that in such a case the value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 of the Partnership Act, property could be thrown into the partnership stock without any formal document, so as to make it the property of the firm. The contention of the assessee that unless there is a document of transfer, the immovable properties in question cannot be treated as partnership assets, cannot, therefore, be accepted. If the immovable properties are treated as partnership assets and the deceased had only a one-third share in the partnership, his share can only be treated as movable under rule 7(c) of the Estate Duty Rules, 1953. The question, whether the share of a partner in a partnership firm, which owned, among its assets, immovable properties, can be treated as movable property, was considered by us in Writ Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
