9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the assessment to wealth-tax was liable to be made under s. 21(1) or s. 21(4) of the W.T. Act, 1957. Comprehensive Analysis: The judgment involves a reference made by the Revenue concerning the assessment years 1966-67 to 1974-75 for M/s. Hasnate Burhaniyah Fidaiyah Wakf. The primary issue is whether the assessment to wealth-tax should be under s. 21(1) or s. 21(4) of the W.T. Act, 1957. The Tribunal held that the case fell under s. 21(1) due to the determinate beneficiaries with known shares, necessitating separate assessments for each beneficiary. The key consideration was the distribution clause in the wakf deed, specifying equal income shares among the five sons of the wakif. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the Supreme Court's precedent in CWT v. Trustees of H. E. H. Nizam's Family Trust [1977] 108 ITR 555, establishing that where beneficiaries are determinate with known shares, assessments should be under s. 21(1). Furthermore, the Tribunal's decision was based on the clear terms of the trust deed, which indicated five determinate beneficiaries entitled to equal income shares. As per the wakf deed's clause VI(a), income distribution among the five sons of the wakif was specified after meeting specified expenses, which was applicable beyond the initial five-year period. The judgment emphasized that assessments in such cases should be under s. 21(1) of the W.T. Act, following the Supreme Court's guidance in the Trustees of Nizam's Family Trust case [1977] 108 ITR 555. The Tribunal's view was deemed justified, leading to a favorable decision for the assessee. The question referred by the Revenue was reframed to address the correctness of assessments under s. 21(1), which was deemed appropriate given the determinate beneficiaries and known shares, aligning with established legal principles. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the application of s. 21(1) for assessments involving determinate beneficiaries with known shares, emphasizing the need for separate assessments in such cases. The decision was in line with established legal precedents and the specific terms of the trust deed, ultimately favoring the assessee in the matter of wealth-tax assessments for the relevant years.
|
