<?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>1984 (7) TMI 138 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63892</link>
    <description>Under Dayabhaga law, a Hindu can blend self-acquired property into the common stock of a Hindu undivided family, even where the family comprises a sole male member and his wife. The blending does not, however, make the wife a coparcener or divest the owner of disposing power over the property. For estate duty purposes, property is deemed to pass on death where the deceased was competent to dispose of it at the time of death. Accordingly, where the deceased remained the sole coparcener and retained full power of disposition, the entire value of the property was includible in the principal value of the estate, and inclusion of only 50 per cent was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 07 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:57:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (7) TMI 138 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63892</link>
      <description>Under Dayabhaga law, a Hindu can blend self-acquired property into the common stock of a Hindu undivided family, even where the family comprises a sole male member and his wife. The blending does not, however, make the wife a coparcener or divest the owner of disposing power over the property. For estate duty purposes, property is deemed to pass on death where the deceased was competent to dispose of it at the time of death. Accordingly, where the deceased remained the sole coparcener and retained full power of disposition, the entire value of the property was includible in the principal value of the estate, and inclusion of only 50 per cent was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>