<?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 25 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28171</link>
    <description>An immediate gift inter vivos made within two years before death is deemed to pass on death under section 9 of the Estate Duty Act, but that deeming provision does not invalidate the gift itself. Debts may ordinarily be allowed under section 44, yet section 46(1) withdraws that allowance where the borrowing relates to property derived from the deceased. On the facts, the gifted amount was later advanced back to the deceased as a loan, so inclusion under section 9 and disallowance of the corresponding liability under section 46(1) both applied. The court held that these operate on different legal planes and do not amount to impermissible double addition; the anti-aggregation rule in section 34(5) was not violated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:55:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (3) TMI 25 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28171</link>
      <description>An immediate gift inter vivos made within two years before death is deemed to pass on death under section 9 of the Estate Duty Act, but that deeming provision does not invalidate the gift itself. Debts may ordinarily be allowed under section 44, yet section 46(1) withdraws that allowance where the borrowing relates to property derived from the deceased. On the facts, the gifted amount was later advanced back to the deceased as a loan, so inclusion under section 9 and disallowance of the corresponding liability under section 46(1) both applied. The court held that these operate on different legal planes and do not amount to impermissible double addition; the anti-aggregation rule in section 34(5) was not violated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>