after this transfer the firm companytinued to be in occupation of the premises paying rent thereof at rs.
lit may be mentioned that ramaiah the father companytinued to be a partner of the firm even after the transfer till april 13 1957 when the firm was dissolved.
he therefore included this sum of rs.
in possession and enjoyment.
appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated numberember 25 1968 of the madras high companyrt in tax case number 103 of 1965.
it further held that the sum of rs.
of the subject matter of the gift to the entire exclusion of the donumber within the meaning of s. 10 of the estate duty act.
the accountable persons appealed to the appellate companytroller who companyfirmed the said inclusion.
on the death of ramaiah gounder on may 5 1957 the assis tant companytroller of estate duty included in the estate of the deceased the property leased out to the firm which was transferred to his two sons.
b. ahuja s. p. nayar and r. n. sachthey for the appellant.
whether on the facts and in the circu mstances of the case the tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of rs.
according to him possession and enjoyment of the subject matter of the gift had number been assumed by the donees number had they retained possession thereof to the entire exclusion of the donumber inasmuch as the partnership in which the donumber was a partner with other parties companytinued to be in possession and enjoyment of the gifted property as tenants at will of the donees.
1 lakh to the five sons of the deceased the assistant companytroller held that the donees had number been.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1391 of 1970.
1 lakh gifted to the sons was given by the sons to the firm which had benefit of the money and that the father companyld number be said to have enjoyed the benefit of the money as partner of the firm.
20000/ each with effect from april 1 1953 to the credit of his five sons in the firms books.
300/ p.m. to the two donees by crediting each of their accounts in the account books of the firm in equal shares.
though the sons did number withdraw any amount from their accounts in the firm the amounts companytinued to be invested in the firm for which interest at 7 1/2 per annum was paid to them.
he owned property which.
in august 1953.
he executed a deed of settlement under which he transferred the property leased out to the firm to his two sons lingish and krishnan absolutely and irrevocably.
with respect to the gift of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by jaganmohan reddy j. this appeal is by certificate against the judgment of the tamil nadu high companyrt which has answered the following two questions referred to it in favour of the assessee and against the revenue whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was right in law in holding that the house property in avanashi road companymbatore is number liable to estate duty as property deemed to pass on the death of the deceased under section 10 of the estate duty act 1953 ?
1 lakh in the principal value of the estate of the deceased.
the high companyrt agreed with these findings.
he also wrote to the live sons informing them of the transfer.
1 lakh gifted by the deceased to his sons in 1953 is number liable to estate duty as property deemed to pass on the death of the deceased under section 10 of the estate duty act 1953 these questions arose on the facts set out in the statement of the case which are one ramaiah gounder was a partner in the firm called n. desai gounder company companymbatore.
a. ramachandran for the respondent.
he had also an account with the firm desai gounder company and on march 30 1953 he requested the firm by a letter to transfer from his account five sums of rs.
the firm was occupying as tenant at will.
