<?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>1982 (8) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27203</link>
    <description>An unequal partial partition in which one coparcener received less than his due share, and the other obtained a corresponding benefit, was treated as a disposition within the deeming definition under the Estate Duty Act, so the difference in value was includible in the principal value of the estate; the fact that the partition was partial did not prevent the relinquishment from taking effect. A cash gift made from joint family funds could be brought to tax only to the extent of the deceased coparcener&#039;s own interest, because the karta could not validly gift the other coparcener&#039;s share. The unequal-partition amount was upheld in full, while the gift was restricted to the deceased&#039;s half share.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:02:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (8) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27203</link>
      <description>An unequal partial partition in which one coparcener received less than his due share, and the other obtained a corresponding benefit, was treated as a disposition within the deeming definition under the Estate Duty Act, so the difference in value was includible in the principal value of the estate; the fact that the partition was partial did not prevent the relinquishment from taking effect. A cash gift made from joint family funds could be brought to tax only to the extent of the deceased coparcener&#039;s own interest, because the karta could not validly gift the other coparcener&#039;s share. The unequal-partition amount was upheld in full, while the gift was restricted to the deceased&#039;s half share.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>