<?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 (4) TMI 17 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28093</link>
    <description>An unregistered agreement of gift purporting to transfer immovable property to an existing trust did not divest the transferor of title, because a completed inter vivos transfer requires compliance with the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act. The document itself contemplated a later registered gift deed, showing that no final transfer had been completed. On that basis, income from the properties remained taxable in the hands of the legal owner, and Indian law does not recognise beneficial ownership for this purpose. The plea that income had been diverted by overriding title was rejected because ownership continued with the transferor until execution of the registered deed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:33:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (4) TMI 17 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28093</link>
      <description>An unregistered agreement of gift purporting to transfer immovable property to an existing trust did not divest the transferor of title, because a completed inter vivos transfer requires compliance with the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act. The document itself contemplated a later registered gift deed, showing that no final transfer had been completed. On that basis, income from the properties remained taxable in the hands of the legal owner, and Indian law does not recognise beneficial ownership for this purpose. The plea that income had been diverted by overriding title was rejected because ownership continued with the transferor until execution of the registered deed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>