1967 (3) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sponding accounting year was the financial year ending 31st March, 1957, the assessee claimed that the amount of ₹ 6,045, which represented the income of the property conveyed by him in trust for the benefit of his nephew, should be excluded from his income. The Income-tax Officer refused to do so on the ground that the said income would be liable to be included in the assessee's assessment under the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the view taken by the Income-tax Officer and dismissed the assessee's appeal. In the further appeal to the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee that the income was not liable to be included in the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Act: "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the sum of ₹ 6,045 being the income from Bank Street property subsequent to September 27, 1956, could be assessed in the hands of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Act?" In our opinion the answer to the question must be in the negative, though not for the reason given by the Tribunal in its order. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. C.M. Kothari([1963] 49 I.T.R. (S.C.) 107.), where in dealing with the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iii) in relation to cross-transfers of almost equal value by a father and son in favour of each other's wives, it was held....