<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (5) TMI 52 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61825</link>
    <description>A married woman could not claim a separate domicile of choice in Bahrain where the Indian Succession Act, 1925 makes a woman&#039;s domicile on marriage follow that of her husband, subject only to limited statutory exceptions. The scheme of the Act also distinguishes succession to immovable property in India from movable property governed by the deceased&#039;s domicile at death. A letter expressing an intention to settle permanently in Bahrain was insufficient to displace the statutory rule, and authorities on domicile by choice were distinguished because they did not involve the same marital position. The revenue&#039;s objection succeeded and the deletion of the addition was reversed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jan 2011 14:23:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (5) TMI 52 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61825</link>
      <description>A married woman could not claim a separate domicile of choice in Bahrain where the Indian Succession Act, 1925 makes a woman&#039;s domicile on marriage follow that of her husband, subject only to limited statutory exceptions. The scheme of the Act also distinguishes succession to immovable property in India from movable property governed by the deceased&#039;s domicile at death. A letter expressing an intention to settle permanently in Bahrain was insufficient to displace the statutory rule, and authorities on domicile by choice were distinguished because they did not involve the same marital position. The revenue&#039;s objection succeeded and the deletion of the addition was reversed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>