<?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>1991 (5) TMI 86 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55655</link>
    <description>Foreign-situated movable property is excluded from the principal value of the estate unless the deceased was domiciled in India at death under section 21(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Domicile is determined under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and is distinct from citizenship and residence. A domicile of origin may be displaced by a domicile of choice through fixed habitation abroad with the requisite intention, and resumption requires proof consistent with succession law. On the facts, long settlement in Kenya, British citizenship, and overseas ties showed no intention to re-establish an Indian domicile, and Indian assets alone did not prove it. The foreign movable property was therefore not includible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:30:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=94117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (5) TMI 86 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55655</link>
      <description>Foreign-situated movable property is excluded from the principal value of the estate unless the deceased was domiciled in India at death under section 21(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Domicile is determined under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and is distinct from citizenship and residence. A domicile of origin may be displaced by a domicile of choice through fixed habitation abroad with the requisite intention, and resumption requires proof consistent with succession law. On the facts, long settlement in Kenya, British citizenship, and overseas ties showed no intention to re-establish an Indian domicile, and Indian assets alone did not prove it. The foreign movable property was therefore not includible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>