<?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 (3) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28037</link>
    <description>For estate duty computation under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the notional partition principle was applied to the deceased and only those Hindu undivided family members who would be entitled to a share on partition during the deceased&#039;s lifetime; the wives of the sons were excluded from that exercise. The document also treats the finding that the Hindu undivided family had already been partitioned as a finding of fact, which was accepted in the absence of a challenge to the legal evidence supporting it. On that basis, the conclusion that the deceased remained a co-owner in the properties was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:35:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (3) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28037</link>
      <description>For estate duty computation under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the notional partition principle was applied to the deceased and only those Hindu undivided family members who would be entitled to a share on partition during the deceased&#039;s lifetime; the wives of the sons were excluded from that exercise. The document also treats the finding that the Hindu undivided family had already been partitioned as a finding of fact, which was accepted in the absence of a challenge to the legal evidence supporting it. On that basis, the conclusion that the deceased remained a co-owner in the properties was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>