Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the settlement deed created a revocable settlement within the meaning of section 9(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950.
Analysis: The settlement deed, though couched as an absolute allotment of properties to the sons, reserved to the settlor a right to select and reallocate properties from the schedules if the contemplated stridhanam deed in favour of the daughter was obstructed or delayed. That clause enabled the settlor to take away properties already allotted and to execute the stridhanam deed at his free will, which amounted to a reserved power to reassume control over the transferred assets. A transfer falls within the proviso to section 9(1) when it contains a provision for re-transfer directly or indirectly, or gives the settlor a right to reassume power over the assets, even if the power arises only on a contingency. The analogy drawn from section 16(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act supported this construction, while the third proviso to section 9(1) was inapplicable because the settlement was not shown to be irrevocable for the requisite period.
Conclusion: The settlement deed was a revocable settlement within the meaning of section 9(1) and its first proviso, and the question was answered in the affirmative against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A settlement is deemed revocable if the deed reserves to the settlor, even on a contingent event, a power to retransfer property or reassume control over the transferred assets.