<?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>1983 (9) TMI 106 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57033</link>
    <description>Where a deceased was the sole surviving coparcener of a Hindu undivided family, the coparcenary property was treated as being within his power of disposal as if it were separate property. On that basis, the entire HUF assets were regarded as deemed to pass on death under section 6 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The analysis followed supporting High Court authority and rejected contrary Tribunal views, concluding that the whole estate was liable to estate duty in the Revenue&#039;s favour.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:10:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=95495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (9) TMI 106 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57033</link>
      <description>Where a deceased was the sole surviving coparcener of a Hindu undivided family, the coparcenary property was treated as being within his power of disposal as if it were separate property. On that basis, the entire HUF assets were regarded as deemed to pass on death under section 6 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The analysis followed supporting High Court authority and rejected contrary Tribunal views, concluding that the whole estate was liable to estate duty in the Revenue&#039;s favour.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>