9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of capital gains from Pallavi Mayor Trust No. 4 in the total income of the assessee under Section 166 of the I.T. Act. 2. Taxability of amounts received by the assessee from discretionary trusts under Section 166 of the I.T. Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Inclusion of Capital Gains from Pallavi Mayor Trust No. 4: The assessee derived income from various sources, including dividends, interest, and receipts from multiple trusts. The specific issue pertained to Trust No. 4, known as "Pallavi Mayor Trust No. 4," which had capital gains from the sale of shares. The ITO assessed these capital gains in the hands of the assessee, arguing that the trust income, including capital gains, should be taxed as income of the beneficiary under Section 166 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee contended that capital gains should be taxed in the hands of the trust, not the beneficiary. The AAC and the Appellate Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision, emphasizing that capital gains are part of the income and can be taxed directly in the hands of the beneficiary as per Section 166. The Tribunal noted that the trustees had the authority to utilize the corpus of the trust fund and had given amounts to the assessee exceeding her credit balance in the trust's income and expenditure account. The court examined whether Section 164 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was applicable, which would necessitate assessing the income in the hands of the trustees. Section 164 applies when the income is not specifically receivable for any one person or when the individual shares of the beneficiaries are indeterminate or unknown. The court referred to relevant clauses in the trust deed, which indicated that the assessee was entitled only to the net income of the trust funds, not the corpus or its accretions. The court concluded that the capital gains could not be considered income specifically receivable by the trustees on behalf of the assessee. It referenced a similar case, CIT v. J. B. Wadia, where the Bombay High Court held that capital accretions were not taxable in the hands of the beneficiary if they were not specifically receivable by them. Therefore, the court held that the Tribunal erred in including the capital gains in the assessee's income and answered the question in the negative, against the revenue and in favor of the assessee. 2. Taxability of Amounts Received from Discretionary Trusts: The Commissioner requested a reference on whether the amounts received by the assessee from discretionary trusts could be taxed under Section 166. The assessee was a beneficiary in 14 discretionary trusts, and the ITO had included the income distributed to her from these trusts in her total income for the assessment year 1969-70. The AAC confirmed this inclusion, but the Appellate Tribunal deleted the income from the assessment, following its earlier decision in Smt. Kamalini Khatau v. ITO. The court noted that the question was concluded by the majority view of a Full Bench in CIT v. Smt. Kamalini Khatau, which held that income from discretionary trusts could not be taxed in the hands of the beneficiary under Section 166. Consequently, the court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. Conclusion: The court allowed the reference, ruling that the capital gains from Pallavi Mayor Trust No. 4 should not be included in the assessee's total income. Additionally, it affirmed that amounts received from discretionary trusts could not be taxed in the hands of the beneficiary. The Commissioner was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
|
