<?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>1965 (12) TMI 141 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180047</link>
    <description>Life insurance policies maintained with joint family funds were treated as joint Hindu family property because the source of premiums was decisive, but section 14 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 did not apply since the deceased had not kept up the policies from his own funds for a true donee. The widow&#039;s nomination and assignment did not bring the policies within section 6 of the Married Women&#039;s Property Act, 1874, because a mere nomination does not create a trust, and section 9 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was not attracted because no gift was shown. The yarn business was held not to have goodwill, as a standardised quota business lacked distinctive features attracting custom, so the valuation of goodwill could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2016 18:21:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (12) TMI 141 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180047</link>
      <description>Life insurance policies maintained with joint family funds were treated as joint Hindu family property because the source of premiums was decisive, but section 14 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 did not apply since the deceased had not kept up the policies from his own funds for a true donee. The widow&#039;s nomination and assignment did not bring the policies within section 6 of the Married Women&#039;s Property Act, 1874, because a mere nomination does not create a trust, and section 9 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was not attracted because no gift was shown. The yarn business was held not to have goodwill, as a standardised quota business lacked distinctive features attracting custom, so the valuation of goodwill could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>