<?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>2000 (9) TMI 245 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71612</link>
    <description>Property devolving by operation of law on civil death was not treated as a taxable transfer under the Gift-tax Act, because there was no inter vivos gift, release, relinquishment or extinguishment of rights by a taxable transaction. The assessee had adopted her nephew before taking sanyas, and the adoption deed merely recorded that earlier adoption rather than creating a fresh transfer; the gift-tax charge under section 4(1)(c) therefore did not apply. The adoption was also upheld as valid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, as additional evidence showed the age difference requirement was met and no other statutory defect was proved. On that basis, the revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:38:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 245 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71612</link>
      <description>Property devolving by operation of law on civil death was not treated as a taxable transfer under the Gift-tax Act, because there was no inter vivos gift, release, relinquishment or extinguishment of rights by a taxable transaction. The assessee had adopted her nephew before taking sanyas, and the adoption deed merely recorded that earlier adoption rather than creating a fresh transfer; the gift-tax charge under section 4(1)(c) therefore did not apply. The adoption was also upheld as valid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, as additional evidence showed the age difference requirement was met and no other statutory defect was proved. On that basis, the revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71612</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>