<?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>1962 (7) TMI 39 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169667</link>
    <description>Trust income received by trustees was held to fall within section 41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 where the statutory phrase &quot;receive on behalf of&quot; was read contextually as meaning &quot;for the benefit of&quot; persons beneficially entitled. The court noted that trustees were the legal owners under the trust deed, but the provision still applied to income derived from trust property. Because the beneficiaries&#039; shares were not fixed in definite proportions during the relevant years, and additional beneficiaries could not be excluded, the first proviso requiring taxation at the maximum rate applied. The construction was therefore against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:23:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (7) TMI 39 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169667</link>
      <description>Trust income received by trustees was held to fall within section 41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 where the statutory phrase &quot;receive on behalf of&quot; was read contextually as meaning &quot;for the benefit of&quot; persons beneficially entitled. The court noted that trustees were the legal owners under the trust deed, but the provision still applied to income derived from trust property. Because the beneficiaries&#039; shares were not fixed in definite proportions during the relevant years, and additional beneficiaries could not be excluded, the first proviso requiring taxation at the maximum rate applied. The construction was therefore against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>