MARUTI TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that for private discretionary trusts whose income is chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate, the surcharge has to be computed with reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading 'surcharge on income tax'. Since the assessee's income in all assessment years was below Rs. 50 lakhs, no surcharge was attracted. The Tribunal reasoned that the definition of 'maximum marginal rate' under Section 2(29C) refers to the rate of income-tax including surcharge, if any, applicable to the highest slab of income. However, the applicability of surcharge is governed by the specific provisions in the Finance Act. As per Paragraph A, Part (I) of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 2023, the threshold limit for surcharge applicability is Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the AO CPC erred in including surcharge. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the coordinate bench in Araadhya Jain Trust (supra) and set aside the order of the CIT(A), directing the AO not to include surcharge in the maximum rate of tax. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Maruti Trust, a private discretionary trust, filed returns for AYs 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25, declaring total incomes of Rs. 38,53,090, Rs. 43,28,140, and Rs. 25,31,550 respectively. As these incomes were below Rs. 50 lakhs, the assessee computed tax at 30% plus cess. However, the AO CPC, while passing orders under Section 143(1), applied a higher tax rate by including income tax, surcharge, and cess, thereby raising a demand. The assessee's appeals to the CIT(A) were dismissed. The present appeals are filed by the assessee against the CIT(A)'s orders.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, for a private discretionary trust whose income is below Rs. 50 lakhs, the tax is to be computed at the rate of 30% plus cess, or at the rate of 30% plus surcharge plus cess, when such income is chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate (Section 2(29C) read with Sections 164/167B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and relevant Finance Act provisions). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that since its income is below Rs. 50 lakhs, no surcharge is attracted, and therefore, tax should be computed at 30% plus cess. The assessee relied on the Special Bench decision in Araadhya Jain Trust vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 173 taxmann.com 343 (Mumbai - Trib.) (SB). Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the definition of maximum marginal rate includes surcharge, and therefore, it should be applied even if the income is below Rs. 50 lakhs. The revenue placed reliance on coordinate bench decisions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
The only common issue involved in various appeals is against the order of ld. CIT (A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee by holding that the maximum marginal rate of tax was correctly computed by CPC taking the rate of income tax + surcharge applicable to highest slab of income in the case of individual/AOP/BOI even when the income is below Rs. 50.00 lacs.
AY 2022-23: ROI filed on 27/07/2022 declaring total income of Rs.38,53,090 AY 2023-24: ROI filed on 27/07/2023 declaring total income of Rs.43,28,140 AY 2024-25: ROI filed on 25/07/2024 declaring total income of Rs.25.31,550
As the income of the assessee is below 50 lacs accordingly, the assessee trust computed the tax at the rate of 30% along with cess of 4% thereon . However, the ld. AO CPC while passing the order u/s 143(1) of the Act for all these three years has applied a rate of tax by taking income tax rate + surcharge + cess and thus raised the demand of income tax against the assessee.
In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is a private discretionary trust and incomes in all the assessment years are below 50 lacs. Therefore, the issue before us is whether the assessee trust is eligible to be taxed at the rate of 30% + cess or at the rate of 30% + surcharge+cess. We also note that the maximum marginal rate has been defined u/s 2(29C) of the Act, which means the rate of income including the surcharge at income tax, if any, applicable in relation to highest slab of income in case of individual, association of persons or as the case may be, body of individual as specified in the Finance Act of the relevant year. We note that the trust/ association of person / body of individual are covered either u/s 164 or u/s 167B of the Act which provide that income of these entities / body are “21. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the judicial precedents cited before us. The short issue arising for consideration before us is, 'whether the definition of maximum marginal rate in terms with section 2(29C) of the Act can be interpreted in a manner to suggest that not only the rate of tax on the total income of assessee would be at the highest rate, but even the surcharge to be computed on such tax would be at the highest rate'.
Before we proceed to deal with the issue, let us understand what is meant by a 'Private Discretionary Trust'. A 'Discretionary Trust' is generally a Trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, whereunder, the Trustees hold the power to decide the class of beneficiaries who can receive either capital or income from the Trust at the discretion of the Trustees. However, no one beneficiary has an absolute entitlement either to income or capital. In other words, in a discretionary trust, distribution of all capital and income is completely at the discretion of the Trustees. Generally speaking, in these kind of trusts not only the beneficiaries but even the shares of beneficiaries Order pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2026.
More judgments on Section 2(29C)
- Sanjay Nayar Family Trust, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 22(2)(1), MumbaiITA 2155/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed15 Jul 2026AY 2023-24
- Sanjay Nayar Family Trust, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 22(2)(1), MumbaiITA 2154/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Jul 2026AY 2022-23
- M/S. Estate of Shyamlal Khemka, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 17(3)(1), MumbaiITA 1276/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Apr 2026AY 2021-22
- Chanda Bharech Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 33(2), KolkataITA 3062/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2026AY 2022-2023
- Chanda Bharech Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 33(2), KolkataITA 3061/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026