<?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>2006 (5) TMI 507 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182641</link>
    <description>Insurance policies assigned under Section 6 of the Married Women&#039;s Property Act, 1874 were treated as creating a completed trust for the named wife or children, so the policies did not revest in the insured&#039;s estate on the beneficiary&#039;s death. Section 281 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held inapplicable because the relevant previous year and assessment year predated that Act, and no corresponding provision under the 1922 regime was shown. The allegation of fraudulent transfer also failed because service of the assessment order and demand notice was not proved, secondary evidence was not properly laid, and no reliable evidence of fraudulent intent to defeat revenue was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 May 2016 15:57:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 507 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182641</link>
      <description>Insurance policies assigned under Section 6 of the Married Women&#039;s Property Act, 1874 were treated as creating a completed trust for the named wife or children, so the policies did not revest in the insured&#039;s estate on the beneficiary&#039;s death. Section 281 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held inapplicable because the relevant previous year and assessment year predated that Act, and no corresponding provision under the 1922 regime was shown. The allegation of fraudulent transfer also failed because service of the assessment order and demand notice was not proved, secondary evidence was not properly laid, and no reliable evidence of fraudulent intent to defeat revenue was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>