https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49349 The Supreme Court treated "transfer" in section 16(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 as requiring a transfer in its strict legal sense, not a broad passing of property. It held that the words "directly or indirectly" enlarge the provision only where a transfer of assets still exists, and do not remove that requirement. A partition of joint Hindu family property was described as an adjustment of antecedent rights, not a conveyance creating a new title. On that basis, the throwing of self-acquired property into the common hotchpotch, followed by partition, did not amount to an indirect transfer to the wife or minor son. en-us Mon, 09 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49349 The Supreme Court treated "transfer" in section 16(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 as requiring a transfer in its strict legal sense, not a broad passing of property. It held that the words "directly or indirectly" enlarge the provision only where a transfer of assets still exists, and do not remove that requirement. A partition of joint Hindu family property was described as an adjustment of antecedent rights, not a conveyance creating a new title. On that basis, the throwing of self-acquired property into the common hotchpotch, followed by partition, did not amount to an indirect transfer to the wife or minor son. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49349