<?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 (9) TMI 38 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7458</link>
    <description>Beneficiaries&#039; interests under the trust deeds were not includible in net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act because, on the relevant valuation dates, the interests were exposed to revocation within six years and therefore fell outside the statutory concept of &quot;assets&quot;. The Gujarat HC relied on the later Supreme Court interpretation that an interest is excluded from the asset definition if it is available to the assessee for a period not exceeding six years on the valuation date. Once that point was accepted, questions about vesting, contingency, and the application of sections 21(2) and 21(4) became unnecessary. The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (9) TMI 38 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7458</link>
      <description>Beneficiaries&#039; interests under the trust deeds were not includible in net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act because, on the relevant valuation dates, the interests were exposed to revocation within six years and therefore fell outside the statutory concept of &quot;assets&quot;. The Gujarat HC relied on the later Supreme Court interpretation that an interest is excluded from the asset definition if it is available to the assessee for a period not exceeding six years on the valuation date. Once that point was accepted, questions about vesting, contingency, and the application of sections 21(2) and 21(4) became unnecessary. The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>