<?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>1973 (10) TMI 6 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9152</link>
    <description>Joint fixed deposits made from gifts to minor daughters remained includible under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 because the donor had not fully divested himself of the benefit, as the deposits and accrued interest were kept and renewed in joint names with him. The explanation that he held the amounts merely as guardian was rejected, since the joint deposit form was inconsistent with exclusive ownership by the minors. By contrast, a gift received by an adult son and deposited by him in the firm where the deceased was a partner did not, by that fact alone, attract section 10; the statutory conditions were not satisfied and the amount was excluded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (10) TMI 6 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9152</link>
      <description>Joint fixed deposits made from gifts to minor daughters remained includible under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 because the donor had not fully divested himself of the benefit, as the deposits and accrued interest were kept and renewed in joint names with him. The explanation that he held the amounts merely as guardian was rejected, since the joint deposit form was inconsistent with exclusive ownership by the minors. By contrast, a gift received by an adult son and deposited by him in the firm where the deceased was a partner did not, by that fact alone, attract section 10; the statutory conditions were not satisfied and the amount was excluded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9152</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>