COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT vs. JAYANTILAL AMRATLAL, AHMEDABAD

CIVIL APPEAL No. 474/1966Supreme Court[1967] 3 S.C.R. 94605 May 1967Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI OF INCOME11 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the first proviso to Section 16(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, contemplates the settlor being able to 'reassume power' over the assets or income, meaning the ability to take back power previously held before executing the trust deed. A provision allowing the settlor to direct trustees to employ trust assets for a particular charitable object, as contemplated by the trust deed, does not constitute a right to reassume power. The Court noted that the mere fact that a settlor might derive direct or indirect benefit is covered by the third proviso, not the first. Examining the trust deed, the Court found that while the settlor had powers to direct the application of income to specific charitable purposes or nominate charitable objects, these powers were to be exercised within the terms of the trust deed and subject to the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Court concluded that the powers reserved by the settlor did not fall within the mischief of the first proviso, as they did not grant him the right to reassume control over the assets or income outside the trust's framework. Therefore, the income of the trust was not assessable in the hands of the settlor. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jayantilal Amratlal, created a charitable trust and registered it under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. For assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) sought to tax the trust's income in the hands of the settlor, Jayantilal Amratlal, invoking Section 16(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The ITO's reasoning was based on the wide powers reserved by the settlor in the trust deed, which he believed allowed the settlor to benefit from the trust's assets. The assessee argued that Section 35 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, precluded him from benefiting. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept this plea. However, the Appellate Tribunal, and subsequently the High Court, ruled in favor of the settlor. The Revenue appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of Jayantilal Amratlal Charitable Trust was not assessable in the hands of the settlor, Jayantilal Amratlal, under the first proviso to Section 16(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the Trust should be considered in the assessment of the trustees and that they were entitled to the benefits of the refunds attached to the dividends from the Trust properties for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that Section 35 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, prevented the settlor from utilizing trust funds for his own benefit. The Tribunal and High Court found in favor of the settlor based on the trust deed's terms and the interpretation of Section 16(1)(c) proviso 1. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the wide powers reserved by the settlor in the trust deed, including the ability to direct loans to himself or firms he was interested in, brought the case within the ambit of the first proviso to Section 16(1)(c), allowing the trust's income to be taxed in the settlor's hands. The Revenue relied on the ITO's order which highlighted the settlor's pervasive control and potential for indirect benefit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 16(1)(c),Section 35

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME· TAX, GUJARAT v. JAYANTILAL AMRA,TLAL, AHMEDABAD May 5, 1961 A (J. C. SHAH, S. M. S!KRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] B Indian Income-tax "Act, 1922, s. 16(1) (c), proviso l-S1ttlor making charitable trust and registering it under s. 35- Bombay Public Trusts A ct, 1950-S. 16(1) ( c) proviso 1 whether can be applied to income of trust on presumption +that sett/or may derive benefit contravening the Bombay Act-Facts justifying applicability of s. 16(l){c) proviso 1. J executed a trust deed wmreby he created a charitable trust. The <ieccl was registered with the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. For the year 1958-59 the Income-tax Officer held that since the settlor had reserved to himself wide powers for his own benefit and had also utilised those PoWers to his benefit, the case was covered by s. 16(1) {c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Accordingly the Income-tax Officer taxed the income of the trust in the hands of the settlor. A similar order was passed for the year 1959-60. In his appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the settlor relied on s. 35 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to show that he was th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 35

All 169 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →