9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the status of individual - specific case of the petitioners, that a private discretionary trust acquires the status of an individual, and that the trustees of a discretionary trust must be assessed under that status - respondents proceeds on the basis that the petitioner is liable to be taxed in terms of Section 160(1)(iv) read with Section 164(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at maximum marginal rate. HELD THAT:- Mandamus as sought for by the petitioner is not liable to be granted. It does not fall within the domain of the Court to structure the Forms and contents thereof, as applicable to specific categories of assessees. Rule 112 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides for the prescription of Forms by the Board, and hence it is Board, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elates to assessment years 2019-20, 2021- 22 and 2022-23. 3. Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed in 2022 seeking amendment of the prayer by insertion of the phrase 'all future assessment years' after the words 'for assessment years 2021-22' in prayer B. In light of the order that is proposed to be passed, I see no need to order these miscellaneous petitions now. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioners, that a private discretionary trust acquires the status of an individual, and that the trustees of a discretionary trust must be assessed under that status. Reliance is placed upon the judgements in (i) Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad v. Trustees of H.E.H Nizam's Family [(1977) 3 SCC 362], (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis that the petitioner is liable to be taxed in terms of Section 160(1)(iv) read with Section 164(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at maximum marginal rate. The respondents also argue that there is no question of permitting the petitioner to file a return in ITR-2 as that Form would contain functionalities that are wholly irrelevant to a Trust. 9. The prayer for modifications in the return Form is wholly unnecessary as the inclusion of functionalities as sought for, would be unnecessary and redundant for more than Rs. 2 crores of natural individuals and HUFs who presently use that very Form. In all, the respondents urge that the prayer of the petitioner is liable to be rejected in toto. 10. Having heard both Mr.Suhirth Parthasarath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
