<?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>1985 (9) TMI 100 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55439</link>
    <description>Reasonable marriage expenses for the deceased&#039;s unmarried daughters were treated as a deductible burden in computing estate duty because the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act recognised the deceased&#039;s responsibility to provide for such expenses. The Tribunal accepted that this obligation could be excluded from the property competent to be disposed of by the deceased at death, rather than being treated as fully within the estate. Although the revenue relied on a contrary High Court view and argued that no charge on property arose, the Tribunal preferred the earlier view that such expenses represented an overriding claim. The deduction was allowed and the disallowance was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:47:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (9) TMI 100 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55439</link>
      <description>Reasonable marriage expenses for the deceased&#039;s unmarried daughters were treated as a deductible burden in computing estate duty because the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act recognised the deceased&#039;s responsibility to provide for such expenses. The Tribunal accepted that this obligation could be excluded from the property competent to be disposed of by the deceased at death, rather than being treated as fully within the estate. Although the revenue relied on a contrary High Court view and argued that no charge on property arose, the Tribunal preferred the earlier view that such expenses represented an overriding claim. The deduction was allowed and the disallowance was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>