COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SANJAY FAMILY TRUST

PDF · subscribers
ITR/118/1986HC GujaratGJHC24010742198616 January 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal had not erred in law and on facts in concluding that the trust was a specific trust and not a discretionary one. This decision followed the principle laid down by a Division Bench of the same High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tanvi Sajni Family Trust, (1994) 209 ITR 497. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad, referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad concerning Assessment Year 1978-79. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', had previously held that the assessee trust was not a discretionary trust but a specific trust. The assessee had claimed it was a specific trust. The Tribunal's decision was based on its own prior ruling in the case of TANVI SAJNI FAMILY TRUST. The High Court heard arguments from both the Revenue and the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the trust is not a discretionary trust but a specific trust? The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's finding was erroneous. The assessee argued that the trust was indeed a specific trust and not discretionary. The parties agreed that the issue was covered by a previous High Court decision.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 118 of 1986

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SANJAY FAMILY TRUST -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner MR HM TALATI for Respondent No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL and MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH

Date of decision: 16/01/2001

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL)

At the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred following question of law for the opinion of this Court in respect of Assessment Year 1978-79 :-

"Whether, the Tribunal has not erred in law and on facts in holding that the trust is not a discretionary trust but a specific trust ?"

2.

The assessee claimed that the assessee is not a discretionary trust, but a specific trust and the Appellate Tribunal found that the controversy was covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of TANVI SAJNI FAMILY TRUST.

3.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the parties state at the Bar that the controversy raised in the present Reference is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tanvi Sajni Family Trust, (1994) 209 ITR 497. Following the principle laid down in the said decision, we hold that the Tribunal has not erred in law and on facts in holding that the trust is not a discretionary trust, but a specific trust. The Reference is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Reference accordingly, stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

(J.M.Panchal, J.)

( M.S.Shah, J. )

(patel)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →