<?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>1997 (7) TMI 112 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40202</link>
    <description>Foreign estate duty paid in the United Kingdom was not deductible as an administrative or realisation expense under the Estate Duty Act, because section 30 already provided relief through the applicable reciprocal arrangement and section 49 dealt separately with duty in non-reciprocating countries. The foreign duty itself therefore could not be recharacterised under section 48. Interest on delayed payment and bank charges also failed as deductions, since there was no material showing they were necessarily incurred because the property was situated outside India. The allowance of solicitor&#039;s fee was left undisturbed, but it did not support the wider deduction claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 112 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40202</link>
      <description>Foreign estate duty paid in the United Kingdom was not deductible as an administrative or realisation expense under the Estate Duty Act, because section 30 already provided relief through the applicable reciprocal arrangement and section 49 dealt separately with duty in non-reciprocating countries. The foreign duty itself therefore could not be recharacterised under section 48. Interest on delayed payment and bank charges also failed as deductions, since there was no material showing they were necessarily incurred because the property was situated outside India. The allowance of solicitor&#039;s fee was left undisturbed, but it did not support the wider deduction claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>