Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the managing trustee appointed under a court-framed scheme could be treated as a manager appointed by or under an order of court so as to attract section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The relevant scheme authorised the trustees to elect or appoint a managing trustee, and the appointment made in exercise of that authority was referable to the court's order. Section 41 covers not only a direct appointment by court but also an appointment made under an order of court. The managing trustee's functions in relation to the surplus income were distinct from his position as a trustee of the Durgah estate, and in substance he managed the surplus on behalf of the kasupangudars, whose shares were defined and identifiable. The provision was intended to fasten liability on the person managing property on behalf of others in the special cases described in the section.
Conclusion: Section 41 applied to the assessee, and the answer to the referred question was in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a scheme framed by court authorises the appointment of a managing trustee and the trustee actually manages income on behalf of identifiable beneficiaries with definite shares, the appointment is treated as one made under an order of court and section 41 applies.