COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. VIMALBHAI RAMANLAL FAMILY TRUST

PDF · subscribers

ITR/129/1984HC GujaratGJHC24011803198411 November 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BALIA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, following its earlier decision in CIT v. Tanvi Sajani Family Trust reported in 209 ITR 497, held that the shares of the beneficiaries in the Vimalbhai Ramanlal Family Trust were determinate. The reasoning was based on the interpretation of a similar trust deed in the cited case, where it was established that there was an obligation on the trustees to distribute the income of the trust. Consequently, the question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

This case concerns an Income Tax Reference before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, arising from an appellate order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', for Assessment Year 1978-79. The reference was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning a question of law. The assessee is Vimalbhai Ramanlal Family Trust, and the petitioner is the Commissioner of Income-tax. The core of the dispute revolves around the determination of the shares of beneficiaries in the trust.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the shares of beneficiaries were determinate? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee implies that the assessee argued for the determinate nature of the beneficiaries' shares. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue candidly stated that the facts are similar to CIT v. Tanvi Sajani Family Trust (209 ITR 497) and that the answer is governed by that decision, which was in favor of the assessee. This implies the Revenue acknowledged the precedent and its applicability, suggesting they did not strongly contest the issue based on the facts presented.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 129 of 1984

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? 1 to 5: No -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus VIMALBHAI RAMANLAL FAMILY TRUST -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BB NAIK for MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1

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

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE Date of decision: 11/11/98

ORAL JUDGEMENT (per R. Balia, J.) The following question of law has been referred to this court for decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', arising out of its appellate order for Assessment Year 1978-79. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances

of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the shares of beneficiaries where determinate?"

The learned counsel for the Revenue candidly stated that the facts of the case are similar to the one that arose in CIT v. Tanvi Sajani Family Trust reported in 209 ITR 497 and the answer to the question is governed by the decision therein in favour of the assessee in which, interpreting a similar trust deed, it was held that the shares of the beneficiaries were determinate and there was obligation on the trustees to distribute the income of the trust.

Following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to above in affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.

------

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →