Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Taxability of Trust Income: Assessing Trustees vs. Beneficiaries Under Section 164</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Versus Smt. Kamalini Khatau</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Versus Smt. Kamalini Khatau - [1978] 112 ITR 652, 1978 CTR 327 Issues Involved:1. Taxability of income received by the assessee from discretionary trusts.2. Applicability of Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Applicability of Section 166 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. Option of the revenue to tax either the trustees or the beneficiaries.Detailed Analysis:1. Taxability of Income Received by the Assessee from Discretionary Trusts:The primary issue was whether the income received by the assessee from six discretionary trusts, totaling Rs. 18,000, should be taxed in her hands. The assessee, a beneficiary under nine different trusts, included income from three specific trusts in her return, but contested the inclusion of income from the remaining six discretionary trusts. The Income-tax Officer assessed the amount in her hands under Section 166, but the Appellate Tribunal held that such income should be taxed in the hands of the trustees under Section 164.2. Applicability of Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:Section 164 deals with the charge of tax where the share of beneficiaries is unknown. The Tribunal concluded that the income from the six discretionary trusts fell within the purview of Section 164, as the shares of the beneficiaries were indeterminate and unknown. The Tribunal held that the tax should be charged as if the income were the total income of an association of persons, and thus, the income could not be directly assessed in the hands of the assessee.3. Applicability of Section 166 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:Section 166 allows for the direct assessment of the beneficiary or the recovery from the beneficiary of the tax payable in respect of such income. The revenue contended that Section 166 was applicable, enabling them to assess the income directly in the hands of the assessee. However, the Tribunal rejected this contention, asserting that Section 164 was the governing provision in this case.4. Option of the Revenue to Tax Either the Trustees or the Beneficiaries:The larger bench examined whether the revenue had the option to tax the income either in the hands of the trustees or the beneficiaries. The majority opinion held that Section 164, being an exception to Section 161, governed the case, and thus, the income should be taxed in the hands of the trustees. The dissenting opinion, however, argued that the revenue had the option to tax the income in the hands of the beneficiaries under Section 166, especially when the income was actually received by the beneficiary during the accounting year.Majority Opinion:The majority held that the income from the discretionary trusts should be assessed in the hands of the trustees under Section 164. They emphasized that Section 164 creates a charge by stating 'tax shall be charged,' and thus, it overrides the general provisions of Section 161. The majority concluded that Section 166 does not apply to cases falling under Section 164, as Section 164 is a specific provision that governs the taxability of income from discretionary trusts where the shares of the beneficiaries are indeterminate and unknown.Dissenting Opinion:The dissenting judge argued that the revenue had the option to tax the income either in the hands of the trustees or the beneficiaries. He emphasized that Section 166 expressly allows for the direct assessment of the beneficiary in respect of income received by them. The dissenting opinion also highlighted that the principle of taxing the person in actual receipt and control of the income should apply, and thus, the income received by the beneficiary from the discretionary trusts should be taxable in their hands.Conclusion:In view of the majority opinion, the question was answered in the negative, favoring the assessee and holding that the income from the discretionary trusts should be assessed in the hands of the trustees under Section 164. The revenue was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found