COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TANVI SAJNI FAMILY TRUST

ITR/34/1984HC GujaratGJHC24011709198404 February 1997Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BALIA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) is challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. The assessee is Tanvi Sajni Family Trust. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had treated the Trust as a discretionary trust and assessed its income under Section 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reversed this decision, holding that the trust was not discretionary and Section 164 was inapplicable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, relying on its previous decision in the assessee's own case for assessment year 1975-76. The High Court is considering a reference on this matter.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the provisions of Section 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the assessee's case. The Court followed its previous decision in CIT v. Tanvi Sajni Family Trust (209 ITR 497) concerning the assessment year 1975-76. In that prior decision, the Court had opined that the assessment was not required to be made under Section 164 because the shares of the beneficiaries were determinate. Therefore, the High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee trust could be treated as a non-discretionary trust and consequently the income should be allocated amongst the beneficiaries and taxed in their respective hands without application of Section 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court, but it notes that the Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT(Appeals) that the trust was not discretionary and Section 164 was not applicable. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue before the High Court, but it indicates that the Revenue is challenging the Tribunal's decision by referring the question to the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 164,Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

.FO 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 34 of 1984

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? -No.

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?-No.

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?-No.

4.

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

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to

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 164

All 167 judgments and leading authorities on Section 164 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →