<?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 (4) TMI 7 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7796</link>
    <description>A gift made by a practising doctor of his hospital and adjoining land to his son qualified for exemption under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 because it was made while the medical profession was being carried on and was connected with that profession. The court held that &quot;in the course of&quot; was satisfied on the admitted facts of ongoing practice, and that the &quot;for the purpose of&quot; requirement was met where the gift was made on grounds of commercial expediency to directly or indirectly facilitate the profession; actual profit or immediate benefit was not required. The assessee was therefore entitled to the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (4) TMI 7 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7796</link>
      <description>A gift made by a practising doctor of his hospital and adjoining land to his son qualified for exemption under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 because it was made while the medical profession was being carried on and was connected with that profession. The court held that &quot;in the course of&quot; was satisfied on the admitted facts of ongoing practice, and that the &quot;for the purpose of&quot; requirement was met where the gift was made on grounds of commercial expediency to directly or indirectly facilitate the profession; actual profit or immediate benefit was not required. The assessee was therefore entitled to the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>