Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)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.
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.
Estate Duty act, 1953
1