<?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>1993 (1) TMI 16 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20732</link>
    <description>Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 applies to cash gifts only if the donee immediately assumes possession and enjoyment and retains it to the entire exclusion of the donor. In proving that the exemption is displaced, the Revenue must establish by cogent evidence not only the donor&#039;s continued benefit, but also the identity of the gifted cash with any later redeposited amount. Mere proof that equivalent sums were later deposited with the donor is insufficient unless the particular gifted money is linked to the redeposit and the absence of other funds with the donee is shown. On that reasoning, the burden under section 10 was not discharged and the provision was held inapplicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:27:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 16 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20732</link>
      <description>Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 applies to cash gifts only if the donee immediately assumes possession and enjoyment and retains it to the entire exclusion of the donor. In proving that the exemption is displaced, the Revenue must establish by cogent evidence not only the donor&#039;s continued benefit, but also the identity of the gifted cash with any later redeposited amount. Mere proof that equivalent sums were later deposited with the donor is insufficient unless the particular gifted money is linked to the redeposit and the absence of other funds with the donee is shown. On that reasoning, the burden under section 10 was not discharged and the provision was held inapplicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>