<?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>1991 (1) TMI 43 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22244</link>
    <description>Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 applies where the donee has bona fide assumed possession and enjoyment of gifted property to the entire exclusion of the donor; on the facts stated, the donor continued in possession and derived income until death, so the gifted properties were rightly included in the principal value of the estate. Relief under the proviso to section 16, read with sections 46(1) and 46(2), was not available because no material showed that the proviso was attracted. By contrast, section 34(1)(c) could not be used to include the lineal descendants&#039; share, as it was treated as creating discriminatory treatment beyond the charging provision; that inclusion was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:09:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 43 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22244</link>
      <description>Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 applies where the donee has bona fide assumed possession and enjoyment of gifted property to the entire exclusion of the donor; on the facts stated, the donor continued in possession and derived income until death, so the gifted properties were rightly included in the principal value of the estate. Relief under the proviso to section 16, read with sections 46(1) and 46(2), was not available because no material showed that the proviso was attracted. By contrast, section 34(1)(c) could not be used to include the lineal descendants&#039; share, as it was treated as creating discriminatory treatment beyond the charging provision; that inclusion was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>