9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions of s. 164(1) of the IT Act regarding discretionary trusts. Analysis: The appeals were made by the revenue against the orders of the CIT (Appeals)-II, Bombay, in relation to the assessment year 1977-78. The common issue in these appeals revolved around the characterization of the Trusts created by two individuals for their relatives as discretionary trusts. The revenue contended that the Trusts should be treated as discretionary trusts based on the absolute discretion vested with the Trustees to change and vary the right to income. However, the assessees argued that the Trusts should be considered as specific and definite beneficiaries as required under s. 164(1) of the IT Act. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the assessees, stating that until the Trustees exercised their power, the Trusts did not fall under the category of discretionary trusts. The revenue challenged the orders of the CIT (Appeals) by arguing that there is no specific definition of discretionary trusts in the IT Act, and the provisions of s. 164(1) should be applied to determine the taxability of the Trusts. They emphasized that the beneficiaries and their shares were determinable in the relevant previous year, making the provisions of s. 164(1) inapplicable. The revenue also pointed out that the ITO had rectified his orders for the preceding assessment years, indicating inconsistency in treating the Trusts as discretionary trusts. Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were to fail. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no specific definition of discretionary trusts in the Act and that the ITO should have applied the provisions of s. 164(1) to determine the taxability of the Trusts. The Tribunal noted that in previous years, the beneficiaries and their shares were determinable, rendering the Trusts ineligible for treatment as discretionary trusts. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal highlighted that if beneficiaries and their shares were determinable in the relevant previous year, the provisions of s. 164(1) would not be applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the orders of the CIT (Appeals) and dismissed the revenue's appeals. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision reaffirmed that the Trusts in question did not qualify as discretionary trusts under the provisions of s. 164(1) of the IT Act due to the determinable nature of the beneficiaries and their shares in the relevant previous year. The consistency in approach and the application of statutory provisions were crucial in determining the taxability of the Trusts, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals.
|
