Thereafter the son began to receive the half share of emoluments from the managing agency.
The assessee appealed against the wealth tax assessments before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and companytended that she was a number resident and that the value of the assets located outside India should be excluded in companyputing the total wealth.
The companytention was repelled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the assessee possessed rights and interest in the shares and the managing agency which were tangible moveable properties located in India and, therefore, subject to wealth tax under the Wealth Tax Act.
The Appellate Tribunal did number accept either companytention and dismissed the appeals.
Thereafter the Revenue obtained a certificate under s. 29 of the Wealth Tax Act to enable it to prefer an appeal to this Court against the judgment of the High Court on the first question.
She was then 63 years of age.
The average income dervied by her during the three years preceding the date of valuation, March 9, 1957 relevant to the assessment year 1957 58 totalled Rs.3,25,585.
On February 25?
By its judgment dated February 16, 1973 the High Court answered the first question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the second question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
1181 to 1186 NT of 1974 From the Judgment and order dated 16th February, 1973 of the Calcutta High Court in Matter No.
1935 Clive Hastings Kinnison executed a will appointing his wife, olive Kinnison, and one William John Collyer, a solicitor, as executors and trustees, and under the terms of the will be gave a pecuniary legacy of f 5000 to his wife and devised and bequeated his real and personal estate to the trustees upon trust to apply the income from the trust estate in accordance with the provisions of the will, Clive Hastings Kinnison, who was domiciled in England, died on March 9, 1943.
Alternatively.
The question arose whether she was liable to wealth tax on her interest in the Indian assets in the hands of the trustees.
At the instance of the assessee the Appellate Tribunal referred the two questions of law set out earlier to the High Court of Calcutta for each of six assessment years.
She companytended that the assets held by her were situated outside India, and being a number resident she was number taxable thereon.
she urged that she was entitled to exemption under sub clause of clause e of s. 2 of the Wealth Tax Act.
The companypus of the trust companysisted of certain shares in an Indian companypany and the income from the managing agency of the Indian Companies.
Taking the average income into account and applying the appropriate multiplying factor in order to arrive at the capital value of the assets in her hands, the Wealth Tax officer companyputed the net wealth at Rs.20,34,906.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
C C. Manchanda, K.C. Dua and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
The widow, olive Kinnison, was number resident and number a citizen of India.
Helen Kinnison executed two deeds of assignment dated December 12, 1927 assigning her share of the emoluments under the sub partnership in favour of her son Clive Hastings Kinnison.
The net value of the personal estate was determined at 7, 73, 978 and the estate duty payable in the United Kingdom amounted to 5, 34, 544 l0 s. 5 d. Letters of Ad ministration were obtained in India on August 23.
Adopting the assessment year 1957 58 as typical of these years, similar wealth tax assessments were made for the assessment years 1958 59 to 1962 63.
The assessee then appealed for all the six assessment years to the Appellate Tribunal.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the life interest of the assessee in the testamentary trust estate of late C.H.Kinnison is number an annuity which is exempt under Section 2 e iv of the Wealth Tax Act?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. These appeals by certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta are directed against a judgment of the High Court disposing of six wealth tax references on the following questions of law E Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee who has a life interest in the testamentary trust estate of late C.H. Kinnison companyprising inter alia of the shares in an Indian companypany and companymission from the managing agency of an Indian Company can be said to have an interest in such shares and companymission and that such interest is property located in India so as to be taxable under the Wealth Tax Act?
198 of 1968.
N. Gupta, number present for the Respondent.
The last of such sub partnership agreements was entered into on December 16, 1907 Kinnison died on April 13, 1916 leaving a will dated June 2, 1916 under which he gave all his property to his wife Helen.
He rejected also the companytention regarding the valuation of the assets.
Heilgers Co. were managing agents of the Kinnison Jute Mills H Co. Ltd and the Naihati Jute Mills Co. Ltd, both Indian companypanies, for several years Heilgers Co. entered into a sub partnership from time to time with James Alexander Kinnison under which the two shared equally the emoluments from the managing agency.
The High Court of Justice in England granted probate of the will on June 1, 1943.
1944 and the stamp duty paid at the time of obtaining the Letters of Administration amounted to Rs.4,44,258.
