https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190806 A transfer remained revocable for section 16(1)(c) even though the settlor's power of revocation could be exercised only with the consent of named beneficiaries; income arising to the beneficiary during that arrangement was therefore treated as the settlor's income. However, where the deed on Phiroz's death made Freny and Feroza absolutely entitled to the relevant property in equal shares, the trust ended as to that property and the trustees became bare trustees. Income arising thereafter came from Freny's absolute ownership, not from the original revocable transfer, and fell outside section 16(1)(c). en-us Tue, 16 Mar 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:48:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190806 A transfer remained revocable for section 16(1)(c) even though the settlor's power of revocation could be exercised only with the consent of named beneficiaries; income arising to the beneficiary during that arrangement was therefore treated as the settlor's income. However, where the deed on Phiroz's death made Freny and Feroza absolutely entitled to the relevant property in equal shares, the trust ended as to that property and the trustees became bare trustees. Income arising thereafter came from Freny's absolute ownership, not from the original revocable transfer, and fell outside section 16(1)(c). Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Mar 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190806