<?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>1976 (1) TMI 42 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62069</link>
    <description>For gift-tax purposes, the description in the gift deed governed classification and valuation of the transferred land, not the wealth-tax return or an earlier assessment. On that basis, one portion was treated as yielding rubber plantation, while the balance was treated as uncultivated land rather than immature rubber, and the valuation was revised accordingly. A gift made for the donee&#039;s education was held to be bona fide and eligible for exemption to the extent reasonably required for the intended study. The foreign-study element was not rejected as merely aspirational, and uncertain income from the gifted property was held irrelevant to estimating the educational requirement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (1) TMI 42 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62069</link>
      <description>For gift-tax purposes, the description in the gift deed governed classification and valuation of the transferred land, not the wealth-tax return or an earlier assessment. On that basis, one portion was treated as yielding rubber plantation, while the balance was treated as uncultivated land rather than immature rubber, and the valuation was revised accordingly. A gift made for the donee&#039;s education was held to be bona fide and eligible for exemption to the extent reasonably required for the intended study. The foreign-study element was not rejected as merely aspirational, and uncertain income from the gifted property was held irrelevant to estimating the educational requirement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>