<?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 (9) TMI 32 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36754</link>
    <description>Gifted sums paid through a partner&#039;s account in a firm and through a coparcener&#039;s account in Hindu undivided family books were held not to be includible in the principal value of the deceased&#039;s estate under section 10 because the deceased had not retained possession or enjoyment of the gifted property. The court treated a coparcener&#039;s rights in joint family property as analogous to a partner&#039;s rights in partnership assets. A sum lying with the firm as trust money was also excluded under section 22 because the statutory conditions for inclusion were not met and the property did not pass on death. The reference was answered against the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:46:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (9) TMI 32 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36754</link>
      <description>Gifted sums paid through a partner&#039;s account in a firm and through a coparcener&#039;s account in Hindu undivided family books were held not to be includible in the principal value of the deceased&#039;s estate under section 10 because the deceased had not retained possession or enjoyment of the gifted property. The court treated a coparcener&#039;s rights in joint family property as analogous to a partner&#039;s rights in partnership assets. A sum lying with the firm as trust money was also excluded under section 22 because the statutory conditions for inclusion were not met and the property did not pass on death. The reference was answered against the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36754</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>