<?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>1969 (4) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7508</link>
    <description>For estate duty purposes, a coparcener&#039;s relinquishment of share in joint family property, or its treatment as a partition, can fall within the statutory deeming fiction under Section 9 read with Explanation 2 to Section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, because extinguishment of the deceased&#039;s right and corresponding benefit to another is treated as a disposition. The value passing on death was therefore includible, subject to the statutory deduction under the proviso to Section 27. The argument that Section 9 was inapplicable because the disposition occurred within two years of death was rejected, since that timing did not take the transaction outside the charge when the other conditions were satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (4) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7508</link>
      <description>For estate duty purposes, a coparcener&#039;s relinquishment of share in joint family property, or its treatment as a partition, can fall within the statutory deeming fiction under Section 9 read with Explanation 2 to Section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, because extinguishment of the deceased&#039;s right and corresponding benefit to another is treated as a disposition. The value passing on death was therefore includible, subject to the statutory deduction under the proviso to Section 27. The argument that Section 9 was inapplicable because the disposition occurred within two years of death was rejected, since that timing did not take the transaction outside the charge when the other conditions were satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>