<?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>1966 (10) TMI 161 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193854</link>
    <description>A disposition under the Bombay Stamp Act was treated as a settlement where the instrument, read as a whole, showed a non-testamentary arrangement for distribution of the settlors&#039; property among family beneficiaries. The court held that enjoyment through trustees, payment of income, and later sale with division of proceeds did not prevent the document from answering the statutory definition of settlement, because &quot;disposition&quot; is wider than &quot;transfer.&quot; It further held that the instrument was not a bare trust deed confined to self-benefit, as it created beneficial interests for children and unborn descendants. The document was therefore chargeable as a settlement rather than as an ordinary trust deed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:09:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (10) TMI 161 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193854</link>
      <description>A disposition under the Bombay Stamp Act was treated as a settlement where the instrument, read as a whole, showed a non-testamentary arrangement for distribution of the settlors&#039; property among family beneficiaries. The court held that enjoyment through trustees, payment of income, and later sale with division of proceeds did not prevent the document from answering the statutory definition of settlement, because &quot;disposition&quot; is wider than &quot;transfer.&quot; It further held that the instrument was not a bare trust deed confined to self-benefit, as it created beneficial interests for children and unborn descendants. The document was therefore chargeable as a settlement rather than as an ordinary trust deed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193854</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>