<?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>1981 (12) TMI 16 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28852</link>
    <description>Property received by a deceased coparcener on partial partition of a Hindu undivided family was treated as passing on death for estate duty purposes where he had become the sole coparcener. The wife, though a family member, had no ownership in the coparcenary property, so no share could be notionally ascertained for another person immediately before death. As the property vested in one coparcener alone, the valuation rule applicable to cessation of a coparcenary interest did not apply. The entire property received on partial partition was therefore includible on death, and the answer was against the accountable person.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:32:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67849" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (12) TMI 16 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28852</link>
      <description>Property received by a deceased coparcener on partial partition of a Hindu undivided family was treated as passing on death for estate duty purposes where he had become the sole coparcener. The wife, though a family member, had no ownership in the coparcenary property, so no share could be notionally ascertained for another person immediately before death. As the property vested in one coparcener alone, the valuation rule applicable to cessation of a coparcenary interest did not apply. The entire property received on partial partition was therefore includible on death, and the answer was against the accountable person.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28852</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>