9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the trust is a discretionary trust and liable to be assessed under s. 164 of the Act on maximum marginal rates. Analysis: The main issue in this appeal was whether the trust in question is a discretionary trust and should be taxed at maximum marginal rates under s. 164 of the Act. The trust deed, executed in 1983, outlined three beneficiaries: Shri Shanti Kumar Chordia, his wife, and their eldest son. The authorities contended that since Shri Shanti Kumar was not married at the time of the trust deed, and their son was born after the relevant period, the trust was discretionary and subject to maximum marginal rates, as per Expln. 1 to s. 164. The assessee argued that the shares were specific, beneficiaries were known, and even unborn children could be beneficiaries. Citing various legal precedents, the assessee contended that the trust was specific, and beneficiaries were already assessed for the income. The Departmental Representative, however, relied on the trust deed's provisions and the sequence of events regarding the beneficiaries' status at the time of execution. The Tribunal analyzed the trust deed clauses and concluded that there was no discretion given to the trustees regarding income distribution. The relevant clauses specified the income shares for Shri Shanti Kumar, his wife, and their son, without any room for discretion. The Tribunal dismissed the possibilities highlighted by the authorities, emphasizing the absence of trustee discretion in income distribution. The Tribunal further delved into legal precedents, such as the Allahabad High Court's ruling on trustees entering partnerships on behalf of trusts and the Madras High Court's decision on trusts benefiting prospective wives or unborn children. Considering the facts and legal arguments presented, the Tribunal held that the trust was specific, and income should be assessed in the beneficiaries' hands. The Tribunal also noted that the alternative argument raised by the assessee was not addressed by the authorities and hence did not require consideration. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling in favor of the specific nature of the trust and directing income assessment in the hands of the respective beneficiaries.
|
