<?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>1973 (2) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9032</link>
    <description>The first proviso to section 41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 applied only where income was not specifically receivable for one person, or where the beneficiaries&#039; shares were indeterminate or unknown. Under the trust deed, the monthly payment of Rs. 500 to the settlor&#039;s wife was specifically receivable on behalf of one identified beneficiary, so it was outside the maximum-rate proviso. The balance of the trust income was receivable for more than one beneficiary, but their beneficial shares were not determinate during the relevant assessment years because final distribution depended on future contingencies. Accordingly, the proviso applied to the remaining income, which was taxable at the maximum rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (2) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9032</link>
      <description>The first proviso to section 41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 applied only where income was not specifically receivable for one person, or where the beneficiaries&#039; shares were indeterminate or unknown. Under the trust deed, the monthly payment of Rs. 500 to the settlor&#039;s wife was specifically receivable on behalf of one identified beneficiary, so it was outside the maximum-rate proviso. The balance of the trust income was receivable for more than one beneficiary, but their beneficial shares were not determinate during the relevant assessment years because final distribution depended on future contingencies. Accordingly, the proviso applied to the remaining income, which was taxable at the maximum rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>