Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.49 seconds)
Smt. Gulabbai Legal Representative Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 January, 1968 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs Jitendra Nath Mallick. on 7 March, 1962

In support, reliance was placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax Calcutta v. Jitendra Nath Mallick, 1963-50 ITR 313 (Cal). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention and allowed the inclusion of only one-fourth share of the income in the assessment of the assessee, as that income actually reverted to him.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ramji Keshavji vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay. on 7 September, 1944

It is difficult to follow the reasoning on which the conclusion is based. When a settlement of the property and a trust is created, the transfer is of the entire property to the trustees and only a certain income is earmarked for the benefit of the various beneficiaries. If the case does not come within the purview of the third proviso, then the whole of the settlement would be rendered revocable and the whole of the income must necessarily be assessable in the hands of the settlor It may be pointed out that in the first part of the judgment in this case the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court entirely agreed with the decision of Chagla J in Ramji Keshavji's case.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patna vs Rani Bhuwaneshwari Kuer on 28 April, 1964

In 1962-45 ITR 357 (Pat) (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the scheme of Section 16 (1) (c) was that although in fact a transfer was revocable under Section 16 (1) (c) read with the first proviso thereto, the income derived from such a settlement would still not be considered to be the income of the settlor if the settlement was not revocable for a period exceeding six years or during the lifetime of the person for whom the income was settled and the settlor derived no direct or indirect benefit from the income From this decision it is clear that the case that was being considered by their Lordships was the case where the settlor had not reserved any interest for himself in the income of the property and the settlement was to be deemed to be revocable by operation of the first provision inasmuch as the power to revoke was reserved in the settlor. In such a case it was held that the income could not be assessed in the hands of the settlor so long as the income did not actually come in the hands of the settlor, that is to say, till the time the settlement was not actually revoked.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - J C Shah - Full Document
1