MINOR PRAHLAD UGARDAS PATEL ORAL SPECIFIC DEF.FAMILY TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITR/95/1997HC GujaratGJHC24020259199714 July 2008Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A.PUJ,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, referred two questions of law to the High Court of Gujarat for assessment years 1980-81 to 1982-83, at the instance of the Revenue. The applicant is Minor Prahlad Ugardas Patel Oral Specific Def. Family Trust, and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax. The questions concerned the ITAT's confirmation of a CIT order under Section 263 on a protective basis and whether the income accrued or arose to the specific beneficiary, making them liable to tax at the maximum marginal rate under Section 164(1).

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to answer the questions referred to it. In view of the statement made by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant (assessee), that subsequent developments have made the references for two years redundant and the reference for the third year involves a highly insignificant amount, and that the assessee was not pressing the reference while reserving the right to challenge the Tribunal's order in other matters, the Court disposed of the reference. No finding was given on the merits of the questions raised. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference without any order as to costs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the order of the CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act on a 'Protective basis'? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on interpretation of section 160(1) read with section 161 and 166, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income did not 'accrue' or 'arise' to the specific beneficiary (the assessee in the relevant year and was further justified in concluding that the assessee could not be regarded as beneficiary in the year under review liable to be taxed at maximum marginal rate of tax under Section 164(1) of the Act? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that subsequent developments have rendered the references for two years redundant. The reference for the third year involves a highly insignificant amount. Therefore, the assessee was not pressing the reference, while reserving the right to challenge the Tribunal's order in other matters where the Tribunal has not followed this order, and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the assessee. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 160(1),Section 161,Section 164(1),Section 166

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/95/1997 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 95 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MINOR PRAHLAD UGARDAS PATEL ORAL SPECIFIC DEF.FAMILY TRUST - Applicant(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS SWATI SOPARKAR for Applicant(s) : 1, MR BB NAIK for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA Date : 14/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT

ITR/95/1997 2/3 JUDGMENT (Per : HO

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 263

All 13,474 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →