Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)Section 10 in Estate Duty act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Estate Duty act, 1953
Section 38 in Estate Duty act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in Estate Duty act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Bibi Ahmadi Begum vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 18 March, 1971
decided on March 18, 1971, we have with regret, found ourselves unable to agree with the view taken in that case and have held that before Section 10 was amended in 1965 such property would be covered by that section.
Mrs. Shamsun Nehar Mansur vs Controller Of Estate Duty, West Bengal ... on 3 April, 1968
On behalf of the accountable person reliance is placed upon the proviso to Section 12(1). We do not think that the proviso can be invoked. It cannot be said that the residential properties were enjoyed to the entire exclusion of the settlor or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise. We have been referred to Mrs. Shamsun Nehar Mansur v. Controller of Estate Duty, [1969] 71 I.T.R. 301 (Cal.). In that case the Calcutta High Court found that the husband, after gifting the house to his wife, resided therein for the purposes of enjoying the company of his wife and not in the exercise of any proprietary right reserved to himself. The court held that Section 10 which was invoked by the revenue would not be attracted.
Section 22 in Estate Duty act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in Estate Duty act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Khatizabai Mohomed Ibrahim vs Controller Of Estate Duty, Bombay on 3 November, 1958
20. In the instant case, it is true that the settlor had not included himself in the list of beneficiaries and that so long as he did not do so, he was not entitled to the benefits enjoyed by the other beneficiaries. But the power to do so vested in him absolutely. It was a power which he could exercise in his absolute discretion. We see little difference between a case where the settlor included himself among the beneficiaries and left it to the absolute discretion of the trustees to extend the benefit of the trust income to him and the instant case where the settlor had reserved to himself the right to include his name among the beneficiaries thereby automatically entitling himself to the benefit of the income of the wakf property. The power to amend the wakf deed so as to include himself among the beneficiaries is only an instance of the wide powers reserved by the settlor to himself. As we have said the powers under Clause 7(e) are expressed in the widest terms. So long as the character of the wakf is maintained, it is open to the settlor to make any changes--and changes which may directly benefit him in the terms and conditions of the deed. We are of opinion that the settlor reserved an interest in the wakf property for life and therefore the case falls within the scope of Section 12, And that would mean, as was held by the Bombay High Court in Khatizabai Mohomed Ibrahim v. Controller of Estate Duty, [1959] 37 I.T.R. (E.D.) 53 (Bom.).