<?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>1991 (7) TMI 162 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70278</link>
    <description>An insignificant omission to partition the surrender value of life insurance policies did not by itself defeat a claim of total Hindu undivided family partition, because the policies had been treated as family expenditure and the omitted value was only a small part of the assets. The unregistered document dated 31 August 1982 was nevertheless held to be a partition deed, not a mere memorandum of a prior oral partition, because it formed an essential part of the partition process and contemporaneously effected division of immovable property. As an unregistered instrument of partition, it was inadmissible in evidence, and the Revenue succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:05:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 162 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70278</link>
      <description>An insignificant omission to partition the surrender value of life insurance policies did not by itself defeat a claim of total Hindu undivided family partition, because the policies had been treated as family expenditure and the omitted value was only a small part of the assets. The unregistered document dated 31 August 1982 was nevertheless held to be a partition deed, not a mere memorandum of a prior oral partition, because it formed an essential part of the partition process and contemporaneously effected division of immovable property. As an unregistered instrument of partition, it was inadmissible in evidence, and the Revenue succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>