<?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>1944 (9) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276210</link>
    <description>Income from the Ulster Road property settled under a trust deed was examined under section 16(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act as a possible revocable transfer. Although the settlement was irrevocable in form, proviso 1 applied only where the deed provided for retransfer of income or assets to the settlor, or reassumption of power over them. The clauses relied on by the Revenue did not create such a present retransfer or reassumption, and the arrangement for the wife&#039;s maintenance and the contingent payment after her death did not alter that position. Proviso 3 was treated as covering transfers deemed revocable under proviso 1 as well. The income settled on the wife for her lifetime was therefore not assessable as the assessee&#039;s income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 1944 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2018 18:25:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1944 (9) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276210</link>
      <description>Income from the Ulster Road property settled under a trust deed was examined under section 16(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act as a possible revocable transfer. Although the settlement was irrevocable in form, proviso 1 applied only where the deed provided for retransfer of income or assets to the settlor, or reassumption of power over them. The clauses relied on by the Revenue did not create such a present retransfer or reassumption, and the arrangement for the wife&#039;s maintenance and the contingent payment after her death did not alter that position. Proviso 3 was treated as covering transfers deemed revocable under proviso 1 as well. The income settled on the wife for her lifetime was therefore not assessable as the assessee&#039;s income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 1944 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>