Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1992 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1992 (2) TMI 57 - HC - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Whether the capital loss arising on the sale of shares by a trust can be set off against an individual's income from capital gains.
2. Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in not considering the capital loss of the trust while determining the total income of the beneficiary.

Analysis:
1. The respondent-assessee, a beneficiary under a trust, sold shares of Rajesh Textile Mills Ltd. and claimed a capital loss. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a deduction claimed by the assessee, resulting in a capital gain assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction related to the fall in value of shares in Sayaji Mills Limited. However, the claim for the sale of shares by the trust was not accepted. The Tribunal, in favor of the assessee, held that the Income-tax Officer must consider the trust's capital loss to compute the beneficiary's total income accurately. The matter was remitted for recomputation of the capital loss.

2. The Revenue contended that the beneficiary cannot claim the trust's losses. The Court disagreed, stating that the trustee is a representative assessee, and the Income-tax Officer can assess either the beneficiary or the trustee. In this case, direct assessment was on the beneficiary, necessitating consideration of all income heads, including capital gains. Failure to consider the loss from the issuance of right shares of Sayaji Mills Limited would misrepresent the total income. The Court held that under the Income-tax Act, the beneficiary is entitled to both benefits and losses of the trust. Thus, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, rejecting the Revenue's contention.

In conclusion, the Court answered both questions in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's application. The Court discharged the rule with no order as to costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates