<?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>1972 (1) TMI 7 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8350</link>
    <description>For estate duty purposes, the source of premium payments controlled the treatment of the life insurance policies. Where premiums were paid from coparcenary or Hindu undivided family funds and recorded in the family accounts, the policies were treated as kept up by the family, so nomination of the wife did not by itself make the proceeds part of the deceased&#039;s separate estate or the free estate. On that basis, the policy value was not includible in the estate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (1) TMI 7 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8350</link>
      <description>For estate duty purposes, the source of premium payments controlled the treatment of the life insurance policies. Where premiums were paid from coparcenary or Hindu undivided family funds and recorded in the family accounts, the policies were treated as kept up by the family, so nomination of the wife did not by itself make the proceeds part of the deceased&#039;s separate estate or the free estate. On that basis, the policy value was not includible in the estate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>