<?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>1986 (12) TMI 89 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66012</link>
    <description>On the death of a Hindu intestate, the heirs acquired vested shares immediately in the self-acquired estate, so the daughter&#039;s relinquishment of her separately vested share was treated as a gift and not a genuine family arrangement. The purported dispute in the deed was not accepted as bona fide for those properties, and the transfer remained liable to gift-tax. In contrast, as to the joint family properties, a possible dispute over the quantum of the daughter&#039;s share was recognised, so the settlement was accepted to that limited extent. The document was also found to have been procured under undue influence, and both the assessee&#039;s appeal and the Department&#039;s cross appeal were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:10:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (12) TMI 89 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66012</link>
      <description>On the death of a Hindu intestate, the heirs acquired vested shares immediately in the self-acquired estate, so the daughter&#039;s relinquishment of her separately vested share was treated as a gift and not a genuine family arrangement. The purported dispute in the deed was not accepted as bona fide for those properties, and the transfer remained liable to gift-tax. In contrast, as to the joint family properties, a possible dispute over the quantum of the daughter&#039;s share was recognised, so the settlement was accepted to that limited extent. The document was also found to have been procured under undue influence, and both the assessee&#039;s appeal and the Department&#039;s cross appeal were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66012</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>