CIT v. Deepak Family Trust (No. 1)

211 ITR 575High Court1995#10368 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Deepak Family Trust (No. 1)

SMT. PASHIBEN PRAJAPATI FAMILY TRUST (DISC),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the manner as indicated above

ITA 305/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Has In-Turn Arisen From The Intimation Dated 07.12.2022 Issued By Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S.154(Cpc/2122/U5/ 314311772) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh R Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 164(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2021-22 Smt. Pashiben The Income-tax Prajapati Family Officer, Trust(DISC), Ward-3(3)(5), B-46/47 Samatva v. Pratyakash Kar Near Sahara City Bhavan, Shela, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380058, Ahmedabad- Gujarat 380015 PAN:AAGTS4634Q Gujarat (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rupesh R Shah, Advocate Revenue by: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 11-07-2024 : 16-08-2024 Date of pronouncement आदेश/ORDER This appeal in ITA No. 305/Ahd/2024 for assessment year 2021-22 is filed by…

GULAB GRANDSONS FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 353/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 164(1)Section 164(3)Section 44A

…ras High Court in the case of Arihant Trust vs. ITO in [1995] 127 CTR 448 (Mad) vi) Gujarat High Court in the case of M. L. Family Trust vs. State of Gujarat. [1995] 127 CTR 407 (Guj) vii) Gujrat High Court in the case CIT vs. Deepak Family Trust No. 1 [1995] 211 ITR 575. The Ld. A.R submitted that in all the above decisions it has been held that the profit of the discretionary trust so created by will has to be assessed in the status of individual. The Ld. A.R therefore prayed before us that though there is no tax effect involved in the present appeal but the issue needs to be resolved and accordingly the AO may…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VIJAY M. MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1481/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address in A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan…

VIJAY M.MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2938/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address in A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan…

SHRI M.F. MEHTA FAMILY DISCRETIONARY TRUST, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALURU, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 132/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ld. Cit(A), Who Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal With The Following Observations”

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 164

…Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee trust was created under a will. He brought attention to copy of will of Mr M.F. Mehta (at pages 4-6 of paper book). Further, the assessee drew our attention to the case of Deepak Family Trust 211 ITR 575 (Gujarat High Court), wherein the Gujarat High Court held that trustees of a discretionary trust have to be assessed in status of 'individual' and not in status of 'association of persons. Accordingly, the counsel for the assessee argued that in case of trust formed under a will, in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of De…

IRM TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2853/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2853/Ahd/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 54

…uction claimed under s.54 of the Act was prima-facie contrary to the statutory provision. 9. The decisions relied upon on behalf of the assessee to give the status of the assessee a colour of individual are totally dissimilar in facts. In Deepak Family Trust 211 ITR 575 (Guj.) relied upon by the assessee, the trustees of the discretionary trust were assessed as individual and not as AOP. The deduction under s.80L were allowed in that case in view of certain interpretation on retrospective amendment in section 80L(i) by Finance Act, 1994. However, as noted above, the assessee has admittedly offered itself as an a…

SHRESTHA KAJARIA BENEFIT TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, W-43(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 726/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 726/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shrestha Kajaria Benefit Trust..............................………………………Appellant 74/2, Ajc Bose Road, Suit 5E Kolkata – 700016 [Pan: Aagts2871M] Ito, Ward 73(4)...................…………………………………………………….Respondent 3, Govt. Place, Ground Floor Kolkata - 700001 Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwala, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 18, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 13 , 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 22.01.2016 & The Grounds Raised Therein By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata. 2. That The Cases Is Directed Towards The Single Issue Involved About The Action Of Ld. Cit (A) To Upheld The Act Of The Ld. Ito In Applying The Maximum Marginal Rate Of Tax (At 30%) On The Trust In Spite All The Conditions Of Section 161(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Are Fulfilled & The Trust Should Be Taxed As Status Of Individual. 3. That The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Observing The Fact That The Maximum Marginal Rate Of Tax Was Applied That The Maximum Marginal Rate Of Tax Was Applied To The Assessee By The Ld. Ito By Passing Order U/S 143(1) Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee & Charging Tax At The Maximum Marginal Rates Of Taxes.

Section 143(1)Section 161(1)Section 164Section 164(1)

…n 161 and 164 by the Finance Act (2) 1980. He has contended that the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 and that of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Deepak Family Trust No. 1 reported in 211 ITR 575, on the other hand, is squarely in favour of the assessee wherein it is held that the status of the trust depends on the status of beneficiary. He has also relied on certain decisions of the Tribunal in support of the assessee’s case on the issue and submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 7 I.T.A. No. 726/Kol/20…

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 407/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ssessee trust nor its beneficiaries had come together with a common purpose of earning income and therefore it could not be treated as an AOP. According to the ld. JCIT, definition of person u/s. 2(31) of the Act did not specify any specific No.1 and others 211 ITR 575, that of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust 188 ITR 224, that of Gujarat High Court in the case of NITI Trust and Others vs. CIT 221 ITR 435, that of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly paid employees 271 ITR 159, that of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri. Krishna Banda…

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 406/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ssessee trust nor its beneficiaries had come together with a common purpose of earning income and therefore it could not be treated as an AOP. According to the ld. JCIT, definition of person u/s. 2(31) of the Act did not specify any specific No.1 and others 211 ITR 575, that of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust 188 ITR 224, that of Gujarat High Court in the case of NITI Trust and Others vs. CIT 221 ITR 435, that of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly paid employees 271 ITR 159, that of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri. Krishna Banda…

BALGOPAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 18(1), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5661/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash K. JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri. N.P. Singh
Section 161Section 54Section 54F

…ly granted benefit of assessment of a trust in the capacity of a individual. For this proposition Hon’ble High Court had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deepak Family Balgopal trust ITA no.5661/Mum./2016 Trust to 211 ITR 575 and Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Shri Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989. 9. From the above case laws it is amply clear that by virtue of Section 161 of the I.T. Act the representative assessee is subject to the same duties, responsibilities and liabilities as if the income was received by him beneficiary, and whatever benefi…

CIT v. Deepak Family Trust (No. 1) (211 ITR 575) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax