ESTATE OF LATE NALINI ATUL BHAGWATI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 167B is not applicable as the beneficiaries' shares are determinate. It also held that while the status of the estate can be 'Individual' or 'AOP' based on the number of executors, the applicable tax rate should remain the normal slab rate for individuals, HUF, and AOP, not the maximum marginal rate.
What were the facts?
The assessee, estate of a deceased person with three executors, challenged the order that taxed its income at the maximum marginal rate instead of the slab rate. The CPC initially computed tax at the maximum marginal rate, which was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) by invoking Section 167B.
What were the issues?
Whether the income of the estate of a deceased person with multiple executors should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate or the normal slab rate applicable to individuals/HUF/AOP, and if Section 167B is applicable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH : MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2021-22 ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Matunga (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai. PAN : AABAE5222A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rahul Hakani, Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 08/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16/01/2025
PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M :
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt.26-02-2024 passed by the Ld.Addl./JCIT-(A)-4, Kolkata and it relates to AY. 2021-22. The only issue urged in this appeal is whether the assessee is liable to pay income tax as per the slab rate prescribed for Individuals, HUF and AOP (Association of Persons) or at the maximum marginal rate?
As per the Will created by Late Nalini Atul Bhagwati, who expired on 3rd June, 2018, three executors were appointed. The said Will was probated before Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. As per the provisions of sec.168 of the Act, the Executors are liable to pay income tax o
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.
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 168
- Estate of Late Rajen Krishnalal Shah, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 34(1)(1), MumbaiITA 4273/MUM/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed4 Aug 2026AY 2025-2026
- 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
- Estate of Vasant J Patki, Mumbai vs DCIT 24.1, MumbaiITA 8971/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2026AY 2023-24
- Estate of Pallonji Shapoorji Mistry, Mumbai vs Deputy Director of Income Tax, BengaluruITA 9185/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2026AY 2024-25
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026