<?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 (8) TMI 51 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7868</link>
    <description>For an individual assessee, expenditure incurred by a spouse or minor child is includible under section 4(ii) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 only if that person is in fact dependent on the assessee for support and maintenance. The Madras High Court construed the amended definition of &quot;dependant&quot; in section 2(g)(i) according to its natural meaning and the Act as a whole, and held that &quot;spouse or minor child&quot; does not extend to an independent spouse or child. It also read section 4(ii) as drawing a distinction between an individual and a Hindu undivided family, so the additional transfer condition does not govern an individual&#039;s case. The inclusion was therefore not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (8) TMI 51 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7868</link>
      <description>For an individual assessee, expenditure incurred by a spouse or minor child is includible under section 4(ii) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 only if that person is in fact dependent on the assessee for support and maintenance. The Madras High Court construed the amended definition of &quot;dependant&quot; in section 2(g)(i) according to its natural meaning and the Act as a whole, and held that &quot;spouse or minor child&quot; does not extend to an independent spouse or child. It also read section 4(ii) as drawing a distinction between an individual and a Hindu undivided family, so the additional transfer condition does not govern an individual&#039;s case. The inclusion was therefore not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>