<?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>1979 (2) TMI 7 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36068</link>
    <description>Under the Estate Duty Act, a deceased partner&#039;s share in a firm is chargeable under section 9 read with section 27 only if there is a disposition by the deceased of a subsisting interest; a later reconstitution deed and recitals alone do not establish such a transfer where the deceased had already retired and was not a party to the deed. Contributions to chit funds in relatives&#039; names were treated differently: section 10 applies where the gifted property is not immediately and wholly excluded from the donor&#039;s benefit, and the amounts remained taxable because they were contributed from the deceased&#039;s resources, credited to relatives, and effectively cycled back into the firm in which he retained an interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:44:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (2) TMI 7 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36068</link>
      <description>Under the Estate Duty Act, a deceased partner&#039;s share in a firm is chargeable under section 9 read with section 27 only if there is a disposition by the deceased of a subsisting interest; a later reconstitution deed and recitals alone do not establish such a transfer where the deceased had already retired and was not a party to the deed. Contributions to chit funds in relatives&#039; names were treated differently: section 10 applies where the gifted property is not immediately and wholly excluded from the donor&#039;s benefit, and the amounts remained taxable because they were contributed from the deceased&#039;s resources, credited to relatives, and effectively cycled back into the firm in which he retained an interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>