<?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>1971 (12) TMI 24 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8737</link>
    <description>Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 applies where the donee does not take bona fide possession and enjoyment of gifted property to the donor&#039;s entire exclusion. A maintenance charge reserved in favour of the donor and his wife over the whole of the gifted properties in annexure A constituted a contractual benefit to the donor, so the exclusion requirement was not met and the properties were treated as passing on death. The nursing home building in annexure B also remained chargeable because the donor continued to use it under a lease-back arrangement and was not entirely excluded from benefit. The reference was answered against the accountable person and in favour of Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (12) TMI 24 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8737</link>
      <description>Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 applies where the donee does not take bona fide possession and enjoyment of gifted property to the donor&#039;s entire exclusion. A maintenance charge reserved in favour of the donor and his wife over the whole of the gifted properties in annexure A constituted a contractual benefit to the donor, so the exclusion requirement was not met and the properties were treated as passing on death. The nursing home building in annexure B also remained chargeable because the donor continued to use it under a lease-back arrangement and was not entirely excluded from benefit. The reference was answered against the accountable person and in favour of Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>