Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.40 seconds)
Controller Of Estate Duty, Madras vs C. R. Ramachandra Gounder on 27 February, 1973 cites

George Da Costa vs Controller Of Estate Duty In ... on 28 October, 1966

The crux of the above section as pointed out by this Court, in George. Da Costa v. Controller of Estate Duly, Mysore,(1) lies'. in two parts : (1) the donee must bona fide have assumed possession and enjoyment of the property which is the subject-matter of the gift to the exclusion of the donor, immediately upon the gift; and (2) the donee must have retained such possession and enjoyment of the property to the entire exclusion of the donor or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise. Both these conditions are cumulative. Unless each of these conditions is satisfied, the property would be liable to estate duty under s. 10 of the Act. The second part of the section has two limbs: the deceased must be entirely excluded (i) from the property, and (ii) from any benefit by contract or otherwise. The words "by contract or otherwise" in the second limb of the section will not control the words "to (1) 63 I.T.R. 497, at p. 501.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 69 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Controller Of Estate Duty vs S. Aswathanarayana Setty And Anr. on 29 September, 1966

The views expressed by the Privy Council are in complete accord with our views already expressed. This was also the view held in Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore v. S. Aswathanarayana Setty ,and another(1), where a Bench of the Mysore High Court considered both the case of Olifford John Chick and of Munro above referred to. In that case, on June 30, 1954, the deceased transferred to his two sons Rs. 57,594 being half of the share standing to his credit as on that date: in the books of a firm in which he was a partner and from July 1, 1954, the sons were also taken as partners in the firm. On the death of the deceased on November 16, 1957, the Assistant Controller held that the amount transferred to the sons must be deemed to pass as per the provisions of s. 10 of the Estate Duty Act, which decision was confirmed by the Appellate Controller. The Tribunal, however, held that the sum which subsequently was rectified to be Rs. 73,695 Was not so includible.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1