KINNARY FAMILY TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, per Honourable Mr. Justice R.S. Garg, noted that the parties agreed that the present Tax References were covered by the Court's previous order dated July 13, 2006, in the case of Sanjiv Family Trust vs. C.I.T. Consequently, the parties jointly requested that the orders of the Tribunal be set aside and the matters be remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Court accepted this submission, setting aside the Tribunal's orders. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the entire matter and redetermine the tax liability of the assessee, specifically the beneficiary of the first-level trust. The Tribunal was granted the liberty to reconsider the matter and decide it in accordance with law, taking into account judgments in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. C.T.O. (154 ITR 148), Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), and other cited cases (263 ITR 706, 209 ITR 101, and 231 ITR 540). The Court refrained from making any observations on the merits to avoid prejudicing either party. All references were disposed of accordingly.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad 'A' Bench, referred three Income Tax References (Nos. 108, 109, and 110 of 1997) to the Gujarat High Court for its opinion. These references arose from Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1444-1445/Ahd/92, 1442-1443/Ahd/92, and 1440-1441/Ahd/92, concerning assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The core issue involved the taxability of the assessee trust as a discretionary family trust and its liability to be taxed at the maximum marginal rate. The parties submitted that these references were covered by a previous order of the High Court dated July 13, 2006, in the case of Sanjiv Family Trust vs. C.I.T.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee trust was a discretionary family trust liable to be taxed at the maximum marginal rate? Assessee's Contention: The assessee's counsel submitted that the present Tax References would be squarely covered by the High Court's order dated July 13, 2006, passed in Income Tax Reference No. 149 of 1995 in the matter of Sanjiv Family Trust vs. C.I.T. The parties jointly submitted that the orders passed by the Tribunal may be set aside and the matters be remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide them afresh in accordance with law. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel also agreed that the matter was covered by the aforementioned judgment and supported the joint submission for remand.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITR/108/1997 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 108 of 1997 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 109 of 1997 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 110 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= KINNARY FAMILY TRUST - Applicant(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR R.K. Kothari for the Applicant(s) : 1, MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 30/08/2006 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG)
ITR/108/1997 2/3 JUDGMENT . . . ,
. Mr R K Kothari learned counsel for the assessee . ,
Mrs Bhatt learned counsel for the Revenue The parties are . heard . 2
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad 'A'
has referred the following question to this Court for its opinion
. & / / arising out of Income Tax Appeal No 1444 1445 Ahd 92
- ; relating to assessment years 1985 86 and 1986 87
'Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the income tax
Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding
that the assessee trust was a discretionary
family trust liable to be taxed at maximum
marginal rate ?' . 3
In Income Tax Reference No 109 of 1997 the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad 'A' has referred the
abovesaid question to this Court for its opinion arising out of
. & / /
Income Tax Appeal No 1442 1443 Ahd 92 relating to
- . assessment years 1985 86 and 1986 87 . 4
In Income Tax Reference No 110 of 1997 the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad 'A' has referred the
abovesaid question to this Court for its opinion arising out of
. & / /
Income Tax Appeal No 1440 1441 Ahd 92 relating to
- . assessment years 1985 86 and 1986 87
ITR/108/1997 3/3 JUDGMENT . 5
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the
present Tax References would be squarely covered by our order
. .
dated 13 7 2006 passed in Income Tax Reference No 149 of
. . . .
1995 in the matter of Sanjiv Family Trust Vs C I T The parties
submit that the orders passed by the Tribunal may be set aside
and the matters may be remanded back to the Tribunal with a
direction that the Tribunal shall decide the matters afresh in
accordance with law The orders of the Tribunal are accordingly
set aside with direction that the Tribunal would be entitled to
reconsider the entire matter and redetermine the liability of the , . .,
assessee i e the beneficiary of the first level Trust It would be
open to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter and decide the
matter in accordance with law after taking into consideration the
& . . . . . .,
judgments in the matter of McDowell Co Ltd v C T O 154 ITR ;
; 148 Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 263
ITR 706 209 ITR 101 and 231 ITR 540 As we are remanding
the matters back to the Tribunal we refuse to make any
observation on the merits of the matters as the same is likely to
affect the rights of the either party All the References stand
. accordingly disposed of No costs [ . . , . ] R S Garg J . rmr [ . . , . ] M R Shah J
More judgments on Section 164
- Anshul Jagruchi Trust, Laxman Singh Block… vs Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), C.R…ITA 1513/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Heard15 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Chiragh Social Welfare Society, Chiragh… vs Assessing Officer Ward 30(1) Delhi, DelhiITA 2658/DEL/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed19 Aug 2026AY 2024-25
- Lajwanti Moorjani Family Trust, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1193/HYD/2026[2024-2025]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2024-2025
- Choksi Subhdraben Chhotalal, Surat vs Ward 2(2)(1), SuratITA 585/SRT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2017-18
- Choksi Subhdraben Chhotalal, Surat vs Ward 2(2)(1), SuratITA 576/SRT/2026[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2009-10
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026