<?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 (8) TMI 185 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70725</link>
    <description>Amounts payable under separate life insurance policies taken under the Married Women&#039;s Property Act, where the deceased had no interest in the policies, are treated as separate estates for estate duty purposes. Section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 provides that property in which the deceased never had an interest is not to be aggregated with other property and must be assessed as an estate by itself at the rate applicable to its principal value. On that construction, there is no basis for combining multiple such policy amounts merely because they are payable to the same beneficiary. The interpretation is also said to accord with the rule that, where two constructions are possible, the one favourable to the accountable person should prevail.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:50:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (8) TMI 185 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70725</link>
      <description>Amounts payable under separate life insurance policies taken under the Married Women&#039;s Property Act, where the deceased had no interest in the policies, are treated as separate estates for estate duty purposes. Section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 provides that property in which the deceased never had an interest is not to be aggregated with other property and must be assessed as an estate by itself at the rate applicable to its principal value. On that construction, there is no basis for combining multiple such policy amounts merely because they are payable to the same beneficiary. The interpretation is also said to accord with the rule that, where two constructions are possible, the one favourable to the accountable person should prevail.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>