<?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>1951 (3) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277283</link>
    <description>Income arising under a trust deed executed by coparceners was held not to be assessable in the hands of the joint Hindu family under Section 16(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The provision deems income from a revocable transfer to be the transferor&#039;s income, and its first proviso applies where the settlement provides for retransfer of income or assets to the settlor. Here, the trust income was enjoyed by one settlor in an individual capacity, the family had no beneficial interest in the income or corpus, and the deed did not preserve the property for the family as such. Any ambiguity in the charging provision was resolved in favour of the taxpayer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:50:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (3) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277283</link>
      <description>Income arising under a trust deed executed by coparceners was held not to be assessable in the hands of the joint Hindu family under Section 16(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The provision deems income from a revocable transfer to be the transferor&#039;s income, and its first proviso applies where the settlement provides for retransfer of income or assets to the settlor. Here, the trust income was enjoyed by one settlor in an individual capacity, the family had no beneficial interest in the income or corpus, and the deed did not preserve the property for the family as such. Any ambiguity in the charging provision was resolved in favour of the taxpayer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277283</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>