https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7874 Compensation allotted under section 45(6) of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 was treated as the separate property of each sharer, because the statutory scheme deemed the compensation divisible among sharers as if a partition had taken place. On that basis, foreign education expenditure incurred for a son was not expenditure out of income or property transferred directly or indirectly by the assessee, so section 4(ii) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 did not apply. Section 4(i) also was not attracted, as no factual basis was shown that the payment discharged a joint family obligation or personal requirement of the family. The exclusion from taxable expenditure was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 19 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7874 Compensation allotted under section 45(6) of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 was treated as the separate property of each sharer, because the statutory scheme deemed the compensation divisible among sharers as if a partition had taken place. On that basis, foreign education expenditure incurred for a son was not expenditure out of income or property transferred directly or indirectly by the assessee, so section 4(ii) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 did not apply. Section 4(i) also was not attracted, as no factual basis was shown that the payment discharged a joint family obligation or personal requirement of the family. The exclusion from taxable expenditure was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7874