<?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>1996 (10) TMI 69 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40196</link>
    <description>Amounts connected with Mazharunnisa Begum&#039;s estate were treated as property passing to the deceased and brought into the estate because the record showed a close spousal association. Expenditure on constructing quarters for dependants and khanazadas was also included, as it was financed by the deceased and fell within the deeming rule for dispositions within two years of death. By contrast, sale proceeds of Persi Polis and Hindustan Motors shares held in a fiduciary capacity were excluded because they were trust property, not debts, so no debtor-creditor relationship existed and the limitation rule was inapplicable. The inclusion of properties occupied by Sahebzadas and Sahebzadees was sustained for want of clear proof of ownership.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2014 12:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 69 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40196</link>
      <description>Amounts connected with Mazharunnisa Begum&#039;s estate were treated as property passing to the deceased and brought into the estate because the record showed a close spousal association. Expenditure on constructing quarters for dependants and khanazadas was also included, as it was financed by the deceased and fell within the deeming rule for dispositions within two years of death. By contrast, sale proceeds of Persi Polis and Hindustan Motors shares held in a fiduciary capacity were excluded because they were trust property, not debts, so no debtor-creditor relationship existed and the limitation rule was inapplicable. The inclusion of properties occupied by Sahebzadas and Sahebzadees was sustained for want of clear proof of ownership.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>