In the account of each of the sons, the sum of Rs.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10 3 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Income Tax Reference No.
The remaining half of Maharaj Mals share i.e, 1/8th was given to Kamlavati.
50,000 to his wife, Kamlavati.
On the 17th December, 1957, Hans Raj died and in his place his widow Smt.
The amounts remained invested with the firm on which interest was paid to the sons.
The deceased companytinued to be a partner of the firm till April 13, 1957, when the firm was dissolved and thereafter he died on May 5, 1957.
1,00,000 in the name of Lalit Kumar and Rs.
In other words, with effect from the said date there were four partners in the firm each holding 1/4th share.
Kamlavati, was number represented in this appeal, Mr. S. T. Desai, learned companynsel for the appellant, assisted the companyrt very ably and fairly.
20,000 gifted to him was credited.
50,000 made by the deceased to his son and wife respectively ?
1,00,000 to his son, Lalit Kumar, and of Rs.
The accountable person took the matter in further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which took the view that the provisions of Section 10 of the Act were number attracted to the two amounts of gifts made by the deceased to his wife and son and, therefore, the accountable persons were number liable to pay any estate duty on them.
The other two partners namely Jialal and Hansraj had each 1/4th share.
T. Desai, S. P. Nayar and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant in both the appeals.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
On his death the firm was again reconstituted with Jialal and Rup Rani each retaining 1/4th share, Lalit Kumar getting 3/8th share, i.e., 1/4th his own share augmented by half of 1/4th share of deceased Maharaj Mal.
1,50,000 were includible for the purposes of the estate duty.
Both the appeals have been heard together as a companymon question of law is involved in them.
The Revenue Authorities relying upon the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Clifford John Chick and Another v. Commissioner of Stamp Duty 1 as also the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rash Mohan Chatterjee v. Controller of Estate Duty, West Bengal 1 , held that the said sums of Rs.
Bhagirath Das, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Seth for the Respondent in CA No.
20,000 to the credit of each of his five sons in the firms books with effect from April 1, 1953.
On a companysideration of the various authorities the High Court has affirmed the view of the Tribunal and hence the appeal.
Ex parte against respondents in C.A. 2527/72.
1,50,000 were debited in the account of Maharaj Mal and credited to the accounts of Lalit Kumar and Kamlavati, Rs.
In the books of the partnership firm the sums of Rs.
In the other appeal, being Civil Appeal 2528 of 1972, Shri Jai Gopal Mehra, the respondent, was represented by Mr. Bhagirathi Das.
2527 and 2528 of 1972.
On the 27th March, 1957 Maharaj Mal made a gift of Rs.
12/68 and 5/69.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALLA J. These two appeals by certificate filed by the Controller of Estate Duty are from the Judgments of the Punjab Haryana High Court.
2528/72.
Maharaj Mal died on the 9th January, 1962.
Even though the respondent, Smt.
50,000 in the name of Kamlavati.
Almost simultaneously with effect from 28th March, 1957 as per the instrument of partnership dated the 2nd April, 1957 Lalit Kumar was taken as a partner in the firm of M s Maharaj Mal Hans Raj by giving him 1/4th share out of the half share of Maharaj Mal.
