<?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 (1) TMI 102 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60043</link>
    <description>A Hindu joint family arrangement setting apart funds for unmarried daughters&#039; maintenance and education was treated as a family settlement made in discharge of a legal family obligation, not as a voluntary gift. The karta&#039;s power over joint family property was not defeated merely because he acted for a sole surviving coparcener, and the daughters&#039; maintenance claim did not render the transfer void. Because the payment was supported by consideration in the form of a recognised legal obligation, it did not satisfy the definition of gift under the Gift-tax Act and was not a deemed gift either. The gift-tax assessment therefore could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 14:49:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=98492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 102 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60043</link>
      <description>A Hindu joint family arrangement setting apart funds for unmarried daughters&#039; maintenance and education was treated as a family settlement made in discharge of a legal family obligation, not as a voluntary gift. The karta&#039;s power over joint family property was not defeated merely because he acted for a sole surviving coparcener, and the daughters&#039; maintenance claim did not render the transfer void. Because the payment was supported by consideration in the form of a recognised legal obligation, it did not satisfy the definition of gift under the Gift-tax Act and was not a deemed gift either. The gift-tax assessment therefore could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>