COT v. Marsons Beneficiary Trust

201 ITR 989High Court1993#3318 most cited

What is COT v. Marsons Beneficiary Trust authority for?

An assessee cannot be treated as an Association of Persons (AOP) if the beneficiaries have not come together with a common purpose of earning income.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Marsons Beneficiary Trust · Income Tax Act 1961 · section 61 · section 63 · Association of Persons · AOP · common purpose · beneficiaries

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

self occupied propertysection 80lsection 23(2)section 2(31)section 23(1)interest on interestannual letting valueannual valuesection 22section 40a(3)share application moneyaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing COT v. Marsons Beneficiary Trust

Krishna Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1478/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…on the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainable. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee itself has declared its status as an AOP in its return of income and the AO had not…

Snehil Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1477/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…on the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainable. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee itself has declared its status as an AOP in its return of income and the AO had not…

Snehil Welfare Trust, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1476/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…on the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainable. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee itself has declared its status as an AOP in its return of income and the AO had not…

Snehil Welfare Trust, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1475/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…on the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainable. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee itself has declared its status as an AOP in its return of income and the AO had not…

Shreeya Welfare Trust, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1474/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…on the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainable. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee itself has declared its status as an AOP in its return of income and the AO had not…

Shreeya Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1473/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…on the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainable. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee itself has declared its status as an AOP in its return of income and the AO had not…

Shreeya Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1472/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…on the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainable. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee itself has declared its status as an AOP in its return of income and the AO had not…

Shrestha Kajaria Benefit Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, W-43(4), 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)

…e has submitted that the same was rendered for A.Y. 1976-77 that is before the amendment made in section 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 issu…

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)

…f 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 Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 and that of Apex Court in the case of C.R. Nagappa vs. CIT 73 ITR 626, assessee trust had to be treated as a representative assessee having the status of an individual, since all its beneficiaries were individuals. Further, as per ld. JCIT, if Sec. 56(2) (vii) of the Act was to be confined only to individuals and HUFs then gifts received by ind…

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)

…f 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 Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 and that of Apex Court in the case of C.R. Nagappa vs. CIT 73 ITR 626, assessee trust had to be treated as a representative assessee having the status of an individual, since all its beneficiaries were individuals. Further, as per ld. JCIT, if Sec. 56(2) (vii) of the Act was to be confined only to individuals and HUFs then gifts received by ind…

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

…ion 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 benefits the beneficiary will get in the said assessment must be made available to the trustee while…

ITO 23(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dhfl Venture Capital Fund, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 734/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, D.R
Section 10Section 161Section 61

…ome Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, accruing to the fund is not liable to be taxed in its hands but it is liable to be taxed in hands of contributors. We find that the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust and others 188 ITR 224 is applicable to the case of the assessee. The facts of the said case are found to be similar to the present case of the assessee. In the said case the settler had appointed trustee to oversee business for the benefit of group of beneficiaries. The department wanted to tax the group as AOP. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that if it is accepte…

ITO WD 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dhfl Venture Capital Fund, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3179/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, D.R
Section 10Section 161Section 61

…ome Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, accruing to the fund is not liable to be taxed in its hands but it is liable to be taxed in hands of contributors. We find that the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust and others 188 ITR 224 is applicable to the case of the assessee. The facts of the said case are found to be similar to the present case of the assessee. In the said case the settler had appointed trustee to oversee business for the benefit of group of beneficiaries. The department wanted to tax the group as AOP. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that if it is accepte…

ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Dhfl Venture Capital Fund, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3264/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, D.R
Section 10Section 161Section 61

…ome Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, accruing to the fund is not liable to be taxed in its hands but it is liable to be taxed in hands of contributors. We find that the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust and others 188 ITR 224 is applicable to the case of the assessee. The facts of the said case are found to be similar to the present case of the assessee. In the said case the settler had appointed trustee to oversee business for the benefit of group of beneficiaries. The department wanted to tax the group as AOP. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that if it is accepte…

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust 2008 Series 14I, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

…would fail. (iv) A trust cannot be regarded as an AOP, as held by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of: (l) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Mafatlal 247 ITR 1 (Bom.), L R. Patel Family Trust vs. ITO 262 ITR 520 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust 188 ITR 224 (Bom.) 6.5.4 Therefore, the contention of the assessee is that it is a valid trust and since it has complied with all the required statutory approvals and procedures, it cannot be considered as an invalid trust, for income tax purposes. 6.6.1 Per contra, the learned counsel for Revenue strongly argued that the assessee is not a valid trust. In de…

Gupta Family Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 4503/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Miss Shabana Parveen
Section 160Section 160(1)(iv)Section 161Section 161(1)Section 164Section 164(1)Section 166Section 24

…eir respective returns and also paid tax thereon, therefore, the AO was not justified in again taxing the trust with respect to the same income. Further ld. AR placed reliance on the order of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Marsons Beneficiary Trust, 188 ITR 224, wherein it was held as under :- “In the applications which are before us, the shares of the beneficiaries in the trust income are known and determinate. There can, therefore, be no question of section 164 being attracted. Looking to section 161(1) and the decisions of our High Court and the Supreme Court, the income of the trust, whether it is b…