<?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>1968 (11) TMI 13 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7454</link>
    <description>Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 applies only where the donor is not completely excluded from possession and enjoyment of the gifted property, or retains a continuing benefit. On that test, the house property at Avinasi Road and the gifted sum of Rs. 1 lakh were outside estate duty because the lessor&#039;s interest had been transferred and the written direction effectively assigned the actionable claim, leaving the donor fully excluded. By contrast, Rs. 81,356 was rightly included in the estate because the material did not show a completed gift or effective divestment in favour of the wife or son, despite later investments in their names.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (11) TMI 13 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7454</link>
      <description>Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 applies only where the donor is not completely excluded from possession and enjoyment of the gifted property, or retains a continuing benefit. On that test, the house property at Avinasi Road and the gifted sum of Rs. 1 lakh were outside estate duty because the lessor&#039;s interest had been transferred and the written direction effectively assigned the actionable claim, leaving the donor fully excluded. By contrast, Rs. 81,356 was rightly included in the estate because the material did not show a completed gift or effective divestment in favour of the wife or son, despite later investments in their names.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>