Specific trust with determinate beneficiaries and shares remains assessable in representative capacity, despite future contingencies in the deed.

A trust deed that creates an existing trust for identified beneficiaries, while allowing additional family members to be included later and permitting early distribution within an outer limit, does not offend the rule against perpetuity where no unborn person receives a vested interest on transfer. Exclusion of the settlor from trust benefits and from inheritance as a legal heir does not attract section 60 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 merely because the settlor's death is mentioned as one terminal event for distribution. Where beneficiaries are specified and their shares are fixed in definite fractions, the trust remains specific rather than discretionary, and assessment is under section 161(1) rather than section 161(4).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether clause 3 of the trust deed violated the rule against perpetuity and rendered the trust invalid. (ii) Whether the settlor retained such benefit in the trust as to attract section 60 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (iii) Whether the beneficiaries and their shares were indeterminate so as to justify assessment under section 161(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 instead of section 161(1).

Issue (i): Whether clause 3 of the trust deed violated the rule against perpetuity and rendered the trust invalid.

Analysis: The trust deed created an existing trust in favour of identified beneficiaries and merely contemplated that additional family members, if any, would also be treated as beneficiaries. No specific unborn person was given a vested interest at the date of transfer, and the deed also empowered the trustees to distribute earlier than the outer limit. On that construction, the transfer did not create an interest forbidden by sections 13, 14 and 17 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Conclusion: The trust did not violate the rule against perpetuity and was not invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the settlor retained such benefit in the trust as to attract section 60 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The trust deed specifically excluded the settlor from the benefit of the trust fund and income, and also excluded him from inheriting as a legal heir of any beneficiary. The mere reference to the settlor's death as one of the outer limits for distribution did not show that he retained any beneficial interest in the trust property.

Conclusion: Section 60 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not attracted.

Issue (iii): Whether the beneficiaries and their shares were indeterminate so as to justify assessment under section 161(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 instead of section 161(1).

Analysis: The deed specified the beneficiaries and fixed their shares in definite fractions. The slight variation in one beneficiary's percentage did not make the shares indeterminate. The relevant position had to be seen as on the accounting year-end, and on that basis the beneficiaries were known and their shares were ascertainable. The trust was therefore a specific trust and not a discretionary trust.

Conclusion: Assessment under section 161(4) was unwarranted and the trust income was assessable in a representative capacity under section 161(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Final Conclusion: The trust was held valid, the settlor was found to have no taxable beneficial interest, and the income was required to be assessed in representative status on the basis of determinate beneficiaries and determinate shares.

Ratio Decidendi: A trust is assessable under the representative provision where the beneficiaries and their shares are ascertainable on the relevant accounting date, and a valid specific trust is not converted into a discretionary trust merely because the deed contemplates future contingencies or minor variations in allocation.

---