9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to exemption under s. 5(1)(xxiii) of the Act. In this behalf reference may be made to the following decisions namely: Shalini Trust vs. WTO (1984) 7 ITD 274 (Bom); H.H. Rajmata Shri Gulab Kunverba Saheba of Nawanagar Trust for Relatives vs. WTO (1984) 20 TTJ (Ahd) 476 : (1984) 8 ITD 651 (Ahd); J.E. Chenoy Charitable Trust vs. WTO (1985) 21 TTJ (Hyd) 244 : (1985) 12 ITD 171 (Hyd) and Hiren B. Patel Trust Nos. 10 22 vs. Ninth WTO (1987) 28 TTJ (Bom) 270 : (1987) 21 ITD 219 (Bom). 3. In view of the aforesaid discussion we vacate the order of the learned Dy. CWT(A) on the issue relating to appellant's entitlement for exemption under s. 5(1)(xxiii) and hold that exemption under the provision upto Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of the value of sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as substituted in place thereof: "After deducting amount mentioned in cl. 7(a) above, the trustees out of balance income 19/20th share thereof shall be used by the trustees for each of my daughters and/or her children and 1/20th share shall be used for my benefit according to the objects and purposes set out in the trust deed. If the trustees do not consider proper to spend the above income then the portion of the income shall be credited to the account of each, so long as it is considered proper by them and at that time to spend the amount for the said beneficiary. If any interest is earned in respect of amount so credited, the same should be given over by the trustees to them if they think it proper. But the trustees are not bound to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence the appeal. 8. Mr. K.H. Kaji, Advocate appearing for the appellant trust vehemently urged that the learned Dy. CWT(A) had mistakenly relied upon the deleted cl. 11 of the original trust deed. It was submitted that the beneficiaries of the appellant trust were quite known and their shares were quite specific and determinate. Mr. Kaji took us through the various assessments made in the income-tax as well as wealth-tax cases of the appellant for assessment years commencing from 1977-78 and highlighted the fact that the appellant trust has throughout been treated as a specific trust by the income-tax as well as wealth-tax authorities in the past. Inviting our attention to the wealth-tax assessment order for asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trust in this case. It could not be challenged before us and in fact it is amply clear from the material placed before us that the appellant trust has throughout been treated as a specific trust by the Department in the past as well as in subsequent years. In fact there were no compelling reasons to depart from that long established position. It seems to us that the amended cl. 11 of the trust deed escaped the judicial view of the learned Dy. CWT(A) and that was why he felt inclined to take the view that the appellant trust was not a specific trust. As stated above, cl. 11 of the original trust deed was rectified and substituted by the new cl. 11 by the deed of addenda dt. 5th Oct., 1940 whereby the confusion, if any or if at all, over the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
