<?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>1983 (12) TMI 39 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27511</link>
    <description>Section 12 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was analysed as applying to a trust because the phrase &quot;any settlement&quot; was interpreted broadly within the statutory scheme. The article notes that a trust deed clause allowing the settlor, during life, to draw benefits from both income and corpus created a reserved interest in the trust property for life, so the property was treated as passing on death. It also explains that the first proviso to section 12(1) required a positive surrender and at least two years&#039; exclusion of the settlor; mere non-exercise of the right was insufficient, so the proviso did not apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 39 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27511</link>
      <description>Section 12 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was analysed as applying to a trust because the phrase &quot;any settlement&quot; was interpreted broadly within the statutory scheme. The article notes that a trust deed clause allowing the settlor, during life, to draw benefits from both income and corpus created a reserved interest in the trust property for life, so the property was treated as passing on death. It also explains that the first proviso to section 12(1) required a positive surrender and at least two years&#039; exclusion of the settlor; mere non-exercise of the right was insufficient, so the proviso did not apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>