Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. Dr. Anand Sarabhai And Executors & Trustees Of Estate Of Dr Vikra
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals No. 2154 of 1978 with No. 2157 of 1978
Petitioner: Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat
Respondent: Dr. Anand Sarabhai And Executors & Trustees Of Estate Of Dr Vikram Sarabhai
Apeal: Civil Appeals No. 2154 of 1978 with No. 2157 of 1978
Judges: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY & S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 02, 1996
Head Note:
INCOME TAX
Income Tax, 1961
Section 80-k- Amount received by assessee from discretionary trusts, paid out of dividend to trusts – If exempted – Held that since question was not answered by High Court, it is remitted to High Court for answer. (Para 2)
Income Tax, 1961
Section 80-k- Amount received by assessee from discretionary trusts, paid out of dividend to trusts – If exempted – Held that since question was not answered by High Court, it is remitted to High Court for answer. (Para 2)
Section 164 – Amount received by assessee from discretionary trusts – If assessable only in the hands of assessee of respect-able trusts. Held that is view of the Judgment in CIT V. Kamalini Khaitan (JT 1994 (4) SC 16) High Court Judgment is set-aside. (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Both these appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court. The question referred in both these appeals are identical. They read as follows:
“(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the distributions received by the assessee from various discretionary trusts were assessable only in the hands of the assessee of the respective trusts under Section 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not in the hands of the assessee.
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the In come Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount received by assessee from various discretionary trusts is exempt from tax inasmuch as the amount was paid out of dividends, received by the trusts which were exempt under Section 80-K of the Income Tax Act, 1961″.
The first question was answered by the High Court in the affirma-tive, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. It is , however, agreed now before us by counsel for both the par-ties that the judgment of the High Court has to be reversed following the decision of this Court in CIT v. Kamalini Khaitan. JT 1994 (4)SC 16. Accordingly, the first question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
2. So far as the second question is concerned, the High Court has declined to answer that question in view of its answer to Question 1. Inasmuch as we have reversed the High Court’s answer to Question 1, Question 2 now requires to be gone into and an-swered. Accordingly, the matters are remitted to the High Court to consider and answer Question 2 alone in accordance with law.
3. Appeals are allowed in part and the matters are remitted to the High Court. No costs.
1. Both these appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court. The question referred in both these appeals are identical. They read as follows:
“(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the distributions received by the assessee from various discretionary trusts were assessable only in the hands of the assessee of the respective trusts under Section 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not in the hands of the assessee.
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the In come Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount received by assessee from various discretionary trusts is exempt from tax inasmuch as the amount was paid out of dividends, received by the trusts which were exempt under Section 80-K of the Income Tax Act, 1961″.
The first question was answered by the High Court in the affirma-tive, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. It is , however, agreed now before us by counsel for both the par-ties that the judgment of the High Court has to be reversed following the decision of this Court in CIT v. Kamalini Khaitan. JT 1994 (4)SC 16. Accordingly, the first question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
2. So far as the second question is concerned, the High Court has declined to answer that question in view of its answer to Question 1. Inasmuch as we have reversed the High Court’s answer to Question 1, Question 2 now requires to be gone into and an-swered. Accordingly, the matters are remitted to the High Court to consider and answer Question 2 alone in accordance with law.
3. Appeals are allowed in part and the matters are remitted to the High Court. No costs.
