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 income arising under an irrevocable family arrangement, where the capital remained the assessee's property, was assessable as the assessee's income under Section 16(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, or was excluded by the third proviso because the assessee derived no direct or indirect benefit.
Analysis: The arrangement was construed as an irrevocable covenant within the extended meaning of "settlement or disposition" in Section 16(1)(c). The income arose from assets that continued to belong to the assessee, so the substantive part of the clause was attracted. However, the third proviso excluded such income where the settlement was not revocable for the relevant period and the settlor derived no direct or indirect benefit. On the facts, the beneficiary had complete freedom to use the income as she pleased, and the assessee retained no power of disposition over it. The mere possibility that the wife might have had a maintenance claim did not amount to a benefit received by the assessee.
Conclusion: The third proviso applied, and the income was not taxable as the assessee's income.
Ratio Decidendi: Income settled by an irrevocable arrangement on a beneficiary, from assets still belonging to the settlor, is not deemed to be the settlor's income if the settlor derives no direct or indirect benefit from the settlement and the proviso to Section 16(1)(c) is satisfied.