https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7478 A settlement deed that transferred only the usufruct and income of house property, while preserving the grantor's reversionary interest and control over the corpus, did not divest ownership for purposes of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; the owner remained liable to tax on the notional annual value of the property. The third proviso to section 16(1)(c) did not relieve liability where the arrangement amounted only to an application of income after accrual, because a mere diversion of actual receipts does not displace the charging scheme under section 9. The house property income therefore remained taxable in the owner's hands. en-us Fri, 01 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7478 A settlement deed that transferred only the usufruct and income of house property, while preserving the grantor's reversionary interest and control over the corpus, did not divest ownership for purposes of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; the owner remained liable to tax on the notional annual value of the property. The third proviso to section 16(1)(c) did not relieve liability where the arrangement amounted only to an application of income after accrual, because a mere diversion of actual receipts does not displace the charging scheme under section 9. The house property income therefore remained taxable in the owner's hands. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 01 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7478