1975 (11) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in respect of 4,000 shares of Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., under clause 9 of which it was provided that the said trust deed was to be irrevocable for a period of six years and five days. 12,000 bonus shares were issued by the Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., and in exercise of the powers reserved to him under the said deed of settlement dated the 15th of December, 1948, the settlor revoked the provisions of sub-clauses (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of clause 2 of the said deed of settlement, and in lieu thereof declared certain new trusts in respect of the trust property which then consisted of 16,000 ordinary shares of Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., as already stated above. It may be mentioned that clause (a) of the original deed of settlement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It is further provided that, subject thereto and subject to the earlier provisions of the said trust deed, the trustees were, in the event of the settlor's son, Shantilal, dying before the 31st of March, 1978, to hold the trust fund for all the children of the said Shantilal in the proportions mentioned therein, and in the event of there being only one child to the said Shantilal, then upon trust as to the whole for the said child absolutely. It was further provided in the said sub-clause (k) that, in case no such child of the said Shantilal is born or is alive, and in the event of the said Shantilal dying before the 31st of March, 1978, the trustees were to hold the trust fund subject to the earlier provisions of the said trust deed for th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or section 21(4) is applicable in a case like the present one is now concluded, at any rate, as far as this court is concerned, by the decision in the case of the Trustees of Putlibai R . F. Mulla Trust v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1967] 66 ITR 653 (Bom), in which it was held that the fact that there was a possibility of the shares of the remainderman being altered, by reason of subsequent events is immaterial because the question that arises in regard to section 21 is, whether the shares of the persons on whose behalf the assets are held are indeterminate or unknown with reference only to the relevant date, which would be the valuation date in each case. There can be no doubt, and, indeed, it has not been seriously disputed, that, as on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X