<?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>1960 (3) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199930</link>
    <description>Dividend income from shares bought in the wife&#039;s name was not includible in the husband&#039;s income under section 16(3)(a)(iii) because the Department failed to show that he had transferred, or intended at the date of purchase to transfer, assets for her acquisition without adequate consideration. Later reimbursement of payments from the wife&#039;s dividend income did not itself amount to a transfer of assets. The shares were also not proved to be benami, as the crucial question was beneficial ownership at the time of purchase and the Department did not establish that the husband provided the purchase money then or that the wife was merely a name-lender.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (3) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199930</link>
      <description>Dividend income from shares bought in the wife&#039;s name was not includible in the husband&#039;s income under section 16(3)(a)(iii) because the Department failed to show that he had transferred, or intended at the date of purchase to transfer, assets for her acquisition without adequate consideration. Later reimbursement of payments from the wife&#039;s dividend income did not itself amount to a transfer of assets. The shares were also not proved to be benami, as the crucial question was beneficial ownership at the time of purchase and the Department did not establish that the husband provided the purchase money then or that the wife was merely a name-lender.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>