CIT v. Kamalini Khatau

ACIT 25 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Anjana Laxmidas Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 25 (2) Room Number 220, Second Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Floor, Vora Kautilya Bhavan 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv0293L Co 70/Mumbai/2021 (Assessment Years 2016 – 17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Tax – 25 (2) Vora Room Number 220, Second 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Floor, Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…at all. The AO‟s legal argument is altogether different and in no manner helping her to build her argument. In the apex court decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in CIT versus managing trustees Nagore Durga 57 ITR 321 (SC) and CIT versus Kamalini Khatau 209 ITR 101 (SC), the ratio was held that what can be taxed as income and that too income earned during the relevant previous year. The nature of receipt in the hands of beneficiary takes the same colour as that of the trust. Thus, in a case where what is distributed by the trust is the income earned by the trust during the year, it is income in the hands of…

Mohan Manoj Dhupelia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4202/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15) Mr. Mohan Manoj Dhupelia The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 12-13, Esplanade, 3Rd Floor, 3, Vs. 1(1), Mumbai A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaipd4113F अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Shri Dr. K Shivram, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Smt. Smita Verma, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-47, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-47/11654/2016-17 Vide Dated 24.04.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1) Mumbai (In Short Dcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 27.10.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Stated That The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing

…nary trust can be taxed in the hands of the beneficiary only when the income of the trust is distributed and received by the beneficiary in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWT vs. Estate of Late HMM Vikramsinhji of Gondal (2014) 363 ITR 679 (SC). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, as the alleged trust and trustees are non-resident and the income of the trust if any at all, is received outside India the same cannot be taxed in India as per section 5(2) r.w,s. section 6(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no…

Jay Ketan Parikh, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

…based on this, it can be concluded that appellant never received any distribution from the Trust and the companies, in any manner whatsoever. The ld. Draws our attention towards the judgment of Apex Court in case of Estate of Late HMM Vikramsinjhi of Gondal (363 ITR 679) wherein it was held that the income not distributed to the beneficiaries cannot be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries. The ld AR submits that addition cannot be made in the hands of an individual who is neither an owner nor a beneficiary nor a beneficial owner of such bank account during the year under consideration. In his defence , the…

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

…the Hon'ble It is submitted that judgment 13 Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of ITAT in the case of Mohan of Wealth Tax, Rajkot Vs. Estate of Late Manoj Dhupelia was that of a HMM Vikramsinhji of Gondal reported in resident not non-resident. [2014] 363 ITR 679 and has preferred to Further, judgment of rely upon judgment of ITAT in the case of Supreme Court was delivered Mohan Manoj Dhupelia ITA No. on 16.04.2014 and was not 3544/Mum/2011 considered in the case of Mohan Manoj Dhupelia which was delivered on 31.10.2014. Further, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vikramsinhji has been now c…

Hasmukh I Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…ncome. He referred to specified trust and discretionary trust and submitted that only trustees can be taxed. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Estate of Late HMM Vikramsinhji of Gondal reported in (2014) 363 ITR 679 (SC). The ld. Counsel submitted that section 166 of Income Tax Act, 1961 has no impact. For this, he refers to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. ITO [1982] 134 ITR 119 (Raj). The ld. Counsel of the assessee further sought to distinguish the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Ambrish Manoj Dhupel…

Chintan H Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…ncome. He referred to specified trust and discretionary trust and submitted that only trustees can be taxed. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Estate of Late HMM Vikramsinhji of Gondal reported in (2014) 363 ITR 679 (SC). The ld. Counsel submitted that section 166 of Income Tax Act, 1961 has no impact. For this, he refers to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. ITO [1982] 134 ITR 119 (Raj). The ld. Counsel of the assessee further sought to distinguish the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Ambrish Manoj Dhupel…

Hasmukh I Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…ncome. He referred to specified trust and discretionary trust and submitted that only trustees can be taxed. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Estate of Late HMM Vikramsinhji of Gondal reported in (2014) 363 ITR 679 (SC). The ld. Counsel submitted that section 166 of Income Tax Act, 1961 has no impact. For this, he refers to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. ITO [1982] 134 ITR 119 (Raj). The ld. Counsel of the assessee further sought to distinguish the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Ambrish Manoj Dhupel…

Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…nary trust and therefore, it is left to the discretion of the Trustees for the distribution of income among the beneficiaries keeping in view the provisions of sec. 164-166 of the IT. Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the landmark case of CIT vs. Kamalini Khatau 209 ITR 101 (Se) has clearly laid down that the income of the trust is either taxable in the hands of the trust or beneficiaries since the said income will be treated as accrued or arisen in the hands of the beneficiaries once distribution of income takes place as the rights of beneficiaries in such income are indeterminate and uncertain. 17. In the instant…

Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…nary trust and therefore, it is left to the discretion of the Trustees for the distribution of income among the beneficiaries keeping in view the provisions of sec. 164-166 of the IT. Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the landmark case of CIT vs. Kamalini Khatau 209 ITR 101 (Se) has clearly laid down that the income of the trust is either taxable in the hands of the trust or beneficiaries since the said income will be treated as accrued or arisen in the hands of the beneficiaries once distribution of income takes place as the rights of beneficiaries in such income are indeterminate and uncertain. 17. In the instant…

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Kiran Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…nary trust and therefore, it is left to the discretion of the Trustees for the distribution of income among the beneficiaries keeping in view the provisions of sec. 164-166 of the IT. Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the landmark case of CIT vs. Kamalini Khatau 209 ITR 101 (Se) has clearly laid down that the income of the trust is either taxable in the hands of the trust or beneficiaries since the said income will be treated as accrued or arisen in the hands of the beneficiaries once distribution of income takes place as the rights of beneficiaries in such income are indeterminate and uncertain. 17. In the instant…