<?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>1975 (7) TMI 8 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38160</link>
    <description>Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 brings a gift into the principal value of the estate where the donee does not retain possession and enjoyment of the property to the entire exclusion of the donor. Cash credits later introduced as partnership capital were treated as a completed gift, but the donor&#039;s entry into the firm meant the donor was not excluded from enjoyment, so such credits are includible. By contrast, a house settled on a minor son after the business had already been carried on by a partnership was subject to the firm&#039;s existing right of occupation and business use, and was not includible where no retained beneficial enjoyment by the donor was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Apr 2010 14:13:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (7) TMI 8 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38160</link>
      <description>Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 brings a gift into the principal value of the estate where the donee does not retain possession and enjoyment of the property to the entire exclusion of the donor. Cash credits later introduced as partnership capital were treated as a completed gift, but the donor&#039;s entry into the firm meant the donor was not excluded from enjoyment, so such credits are includible. By contrast, a house settled on a minor son after the business had already been carried on by a partnership was subject to the firm&#039;s existing right of occupation and business use, and was not includible where no retained beneficial enjoyment by the donor was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>