<?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>2005 (1) TMI 88 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13242</link>
    <description>The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee in a case concerning the addition of the value of shares transferred to a trust under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The court upheld the deletion of the addition of shares&#039; value to the trust, determining that trusts for unborn children are valid. Additionally, the court found the trust to be valid despite not meeting the basic conditions of the Indian Trusts Act. Both issues were decided in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded to either party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 15:48:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 88 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13242</link>
      <description>The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee in a case concerning the addition of the value of shares transferred to a trust under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The court upheld the deletion of the addition of shares&#039; value to the trust, determining that trusts for unborn children are valid. Additionally, the court found the trust to be valid despite not meeting the basic conditions of the Indian Trusts Act. Both issues were decided in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded to either party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>