<?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 (7) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36866</link>
    <description>A periodic annuity secured by an express charge over specified property was treated as an interest in property for section 7 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, because the recipient could look to identifiable assets for payment and was not limited to a bare personal covenant. On the deceased&#039;s death, the charge stood discharged and the sons were relieved of the burden, so a benefit accrued to them. The annual right to receive the payment was also described as property under section 2(15), and its cessation produced a taxable advantage. The section 40 objection was not considered because it had not been raised in the reference or Tribunal proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (7) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36866</link>
      <description>A periodic annuity secured by an express charge over specified property was treated as an interest in property for section 7 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, because the recipient could look to identifiable assets for payment and was not limited to a bare personal covenant. On the deceased&#039;s death, the charge stood discharged and the sons were relieved of the burden, so a benefit accrued to them. The annual right to receive the payment was also described as property under section 2(15), and its cessation produced a taxable advantage. The section 40 objection was not considered because it had not been raised in the reference or Tribunal proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>