Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 61 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 64 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs S. Raghbir Singh Trust on 18 March, 1970
19. The decision of the Supreme Court in S. Raghbir Singh's case (supra) relied on by the Revenue really supports the assessee's contentions rather than the Revenue. While construing the first proviso to Section 16(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows at page 414 of the reports:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Mrs. Leela Nath vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 August, 1980
This decision of the Supreme Court was followed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mrs. Leela Nath's case (supra). The passage quoted above has been relied on by the Calcutta High Court at pages 522 and 523 of the reports while construing the provisions of Sections 61 and 63 of the present Income-tax Act, 1961. In this decision, Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court have held that in order to be a revocable transfer under Section 63 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the transfer deed must contain a provision for retransfer directly or indirectly of the whole or any part of the income or assets to the transferor or the right to reassume power directly or indirectly over the whole or any part of the income of assets, that mere transfer or enjoyment of any income or assets by the transferor without there being any right to reassume power would not make it revocable and that if the trustees acting in derogation or in breach of the transfer and the benefit is derived thereby by the settlor, it cannot be said that the Deed of Transfer was revocable. In my view, this decision of the Calcutta High Court is directly applicable to the facts of the present case and the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) rightly followed this decision to hold that this is not a revocable transfer by the assessee. There is no warrant for holding that these Trust Deeds executed by the assessee contain any provision or give her any right to reassume either directly or indirectly power over the assets or the income of the property for her own benefit. Such an intention on the part of the assessee, is totally absent, as could be seen from the terms of the Trust Deeds. I, therefore, respectively follow the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court, referred to above, and confirm the orders of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the Trust Deeds in question are not revocable transfers and that, therefore, the income from this property settled on trust is not assessable in the hands of the assessee, except to the extent they are hit by the provisions of Section 64 of the Act in respect of the three minor sons of the assessee who are also beneficiaries under these Trust Deeds. In fact, the Dy. Commissioner had taken care to see that such income of the minor beneficiaries is included in the income of the assessee for purposes of tax.