1988 (11) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves determining whether a document should be classified as a settlement or a trust under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Classification of Document
The court addressed the question of whether the document in question should be considered a settlement or a trust. The document in question was executed to create a trust for religious and charitable purposes, transferring a building for running a hospital. Initially, a duty under article 64 of Schedule 1B was paid, but an objection was raised that it should be classified as a settlement under section 2(24) of the Stamp Act. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority concluded that it was a trust, not a settlement, based on the purpose of the trust for educational, religious, and charitable activities.

Issue 2: Interpretation of "Settlement"
The court examined the definition of "settlement" under section 2(24) of the Stamp Act, which includes non-testamentary dispositions for religious or charitable purposes. The document in question involved a disposition of immovable property for religious and charitable purposes, falling within the definition of a settlement. The court emphasized that even if the document appeared to be a trust deed, it could still be classified as a settlement if it met the criteria specified in the Act.

Issue 3: Stamp Duty Calculation
The court compared the stamp duty payable for a settlement versus a trust deed. It was noted that the duty for a settlement is higher than that for a trust deed when the value of the property exceeds a certain threshold. In this case, with the property valued at Rs. 7 lakhs, the court determined that the document should be subject to stamp duty as an instrument of settlement under article 58 of Schedule 1B. The court relied on previous decisions and the provisions of section 6 of the Stamp Act to support this conclusion.

In conclusion, the court held that the document in question should be treated as an instrument of settlement and be subject to stamp duty accordingly. The opinion was to be returned to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for further action.