<?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>2002 (10) TMI 63 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12111</link>
    <description>A marriage payment made by an assessee to his daughter was treated as a taxable gift because the court held that, under the earlier precedent applied, a Christian father&#039;s obligation to maintain his daughter ends on her marriage and does not continue so as to characterise the payment as support discharged under a subsisting legal duty. The amount paid at the time of marriage was therefore not exempt from gift-tax on that basis, and the questions referred were answered against the assessee. The alternative contention that the payment was made on behalf of the assessee, his wife and son had not been examined below and was left open for fresh consideration by the Tribunal or other appropriate authority if remittal became necessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 63 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12111</link>
      <description>A marriage payment made by an assessee to his daughter was treated as a taxable gift because the court held that, under the earlier precedent applied, a Christian father&#039;s obligation to maintain his daughter ends on her marriage and does not continue so as to characterise the payment as support discharged under a subsisting legal duty. The amount paid at the time of marriage was therefore not exempt from gift-tax on that basis, and the questions referred were answered against the assessee. The alternative contention that the payment was made on behalf of the assessee, his wife and son had not been examined below and was left open for fresh consideration by the Tribunal or other appropriate authority if remittal became necessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>