Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)
Jagjit Sahni vs Assistant Controller Of Estate Duty on 7 April, 1986 cites

Vyankates Dhonddeo Deshpande vs Sou. Kusum Dattatraya Kulkarni & Ors on 27 September, 1978

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that jewellery, cash and fridge of the value of Rs. 67,744 given by the assessee to Smt. Jayasree Mehta, at the time of her marriage, did not fall within the ambit of the term 'gift' as defined in Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ? (p. 73) By referring to Article 304(2), which dealt with the property available for partition, which we referred to earlier, the High Court agreed with the conclusion of the Tribunal and held in favour of the assessee. The Calcutta High Court also referred to the provisions made in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and pointed out that the traditional concept of Hindu law of obligating the joint family to meet the marriage expenses of unmarried daughter was not only altered by this Act but was recognised. The expression 'maintenance' used in that Act was defined to include in the case of unmarried daughter reasonable expenses of and incidental to her marriage. Elucidating this position further the Calcutta High Court pointed out that the satutory law imposed upon the karta or the father, as the case may be, the obligation of maintaining the daughter along with the obligation to incur expenses on the occasion of the marriage. They also made a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Venkatesh Dhonddev Deshpande v. Sou, Kusum Dattatraya Kulkarni AIR 1978 SC 1791 to fortify their conclusion. After referring to the entire case law on the subject including the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the Calcutta High Court pointed out that the legal as well as moral obligation under the Hindu law of a HUF to incur expenses on the occasion of the marriage of an unmarried daughter is recognised by the Courts. A daughter has a right as long as the family remained joint and had properties to have her marriage expenses met out of the joint family fund. The legitimate marriage expenses of the daughter will have to be met out of the funds of the joint family.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 14 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next