BHARTI TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITR/56/1997HC GujaratGJHC24020220199704 March 2008Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bharti Trust, is a private trust. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 161(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 1985-86 and 1986-87, holding that the trust, as a partner in a firm, was liable to tax at the maximum marginal rate. The assessee argued that Section 161(1A) was not applicable as its share of income from the firm was NIL due to not receiving accounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's plea, stating the firm was closed. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed this, finding no evidence of the firm's dissolution.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the questions referred were academic in nature. The controversy before the Court was not about whether the assessee-Trust was a partner, but rather whether it had received partnership share income or if the firm had closed down. The Tribunal had found, as a matter of fact, that there was no evidence to support these contentions. Consequently, the Court left the referred questions unanswered and disposed of the reference. No costs were awarded.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee trust was liable to tax at the maximum marginal rate under Section 161(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee trust was deriving “profit and gains of business” within the meaning of Section 161(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that Section 161(1A) could not be invoked because it had shown its partnership share income as NIL, as accounts were not received from the partnership, and that the firm had closed down during the year under consideration. Revenue's Contentions: The Assessing Officer contended that unless the Trust ceased to be a partner or the firm discontinued its business, the entire income of the Trust had to be taxed at the maximum marginal rate. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the assessee's claim of the firm's closure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 161(1A),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/56/1997 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 56 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED =================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 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 ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO =================================================== BHARTI TRUST - Applicant(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent(s) =================================================== Appearance : MR NR DIVETIA for Applicant(s) : 1,MR SN DIVATIA for Applicant(s) : 1, MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1, =================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 04/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HON

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 256(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →