<?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>1998 (9) TMI 31 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15598</link>
    <description>Transfer of property supported by adequate consideration did not attract a deemed gift under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act where the Revenue failed to prove undervaluation or any device to evade tax. Mere later computation of a higher market value was insufficient to show that the consideration received was inadequate. In the absence of material establishing evasion or undervaluation, the burden on the Revenue was not discharged and no deemed gift arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:44:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 31 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15598</link>
      <description>Transfer of property supported by adequate consideration did not attract a deemed gift under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act where the Revenue failed to prove undervaluation or any device to evade tax. Mere later computation of a higher market value was insufficient to show that the consideration received was inadequate. In the absence of material establishing evasion or undervaluation, the burden on the Revenue was not discharged and no deemed gift arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>