BAMBRIDGE Vs. INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS
LAWS(CAL)-1954-11-13
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on November 18,1954

Bambridge Appellant
VERSUS
INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) having stated the facts and read section 18 of the Finance Act, 1936, as set out above, continued : The case was stated by the special commissioners with great amplitude and elaboration but, in truth, the matters debated before us fall within a narrow compass. There is no doubt that Mr. and Mrs. Kipling did, within the meaning of section 18 of the Finance Act, 1936 make transfers of assets by virtue of which or in consequence whereof, either alone or in conjunction with associated operations, income became payable to a person resident or domiciled outside the United Kingdom, namely, Kamouraska Investments Ltd. There is further no doubt that Mrs. Bambridge did, within the meaning of the section, acquire rights by virtue of which she had power to enjoy the income of Kamouraska Investments Ltd., partly under the provisions of her fathers settlement and partly under the provisions of her mothers will. But it is contended on the part of Mrs. Bambridge that she did not acquire those rights by means of the transfers, either alone or in conjunction with associated operations, within the meaning of the section.
(2.) The argument for the Crown as regards Mrs. Bambridges interest under her fathers settlement is to the effect that she acquired the rights in question by means of the transfer to Kamouraska Investments Ltd. made by her father, in conjunction with an associated operation in the shape of his settlement of his shares and debentures in Kamouraska Investments Ltd.; and this argument was accepted by the judge.
(3.) The argument for Mrs. Bambridge as regards this same interest is to the effect that she acquired the rights in question not by means simply of the transfer and the settlement, but by means of those two transactions together with the deaths of her father and mother. It is said that those deaths constituted essential links in Mrs. Bambridges title to the rights in question; that the links were not associated operations within the meaning of the section; and that, in order to bring the rights in question within the mischief of the section, it must be shown that Mrs. Bambridge acquired them strictly in the way postulated by the section, that is to say, by means either of the transfer alone or of the transfer in conjunction with associated operations, and by no other alternative or ancillary means.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.