<?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>1994 (1) TMI 30 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19817</link>
    <description>Lal Godam was examined for inclusion in the dutiable estate under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The court noted that the trust deed had not been acted upon and that the gift deed was valid and had taken effect. Section 27 was held inapplicable because it only deems certain dispositions to be gifts for Act purposes and did not fit the facts. Section 10 was also held inapplicable because its condition that the donee must not have immediately assumed bona fide possession and enjoyment to the exclusion of the donor was inconsistent with a valid, effective gift. The property was therefore not includible in the principal value of the estate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:32:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 30 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19817</link>
      <description>Lal Godam was examined for inclusion in the dutiable estate under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The court noted that the trust deed had not been acted upon and that the gift deed was valid and had taken effect. Section 27 was held inapplicable because it only deems certain dispositions to be gifts for Act purposes and did not fit the facts. Section 10 was also held inapplicable because its condition that the donee must not have immediately assumed bona fide possession and enjoyment to the exclusion of the donor was inconsistent with a valid, effective gift. The property was therefore not includible in the principal value of the estate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>