<?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>1986 (7) TMI 89 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40062</link>
    <description>Estate duty is attracted only where property passes on death or is deemed to pass because the deceased had a lifetime property interest or disposing capacity. On a personal accident policy, the assured sum arises only on the contingency of accident and death, so the nomination does not amount to a transfer of existing property and the amount is not includible in the principal value of the estate. The text also notes that adoption normally severs ties with the natural family, but a proved custom or binding arrangement may preserve the adopted son&#039;s interest; on that basis, the deceased&#039;s coparcenary share was treated as one-third rather than one-half.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2014 17:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 89 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40062</link>
      <description>Estate duty is attracted only where property passes on death or is deemed to pass because the deceased had a lifetime property interest or disposing capacity. On a personal accident policy, the assured sum arises only on the contingency of accident and death, so the nomination does not amount to a transfer of existing property and the amount is not includible in the principal value of the estate. The text also notes that adoption normally severs ties with the natural family, but a proved custom or binding arrangement may preserve the adopted son&#039;s interest; on that basis, the deceased&#039;s coparcenary share was treated as one-third rather than one-half.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>