TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Commissioner was justified in revising the assessment under section 263 on the ground that the trust had indeterminate shares and should have been assessed as an association of persons, and whether the trust deed was void for vagueness or hit by the rule against perpetuity.
Analysis: The trust deed identified the beneficiaries, and the shares allotted to them were determinate. The provision relating to prospective spouses and the alternative disposition in the event of non-marriage or death did not render the deed uncertain or invalid. On these facts, the precondition for invoking section 164 on the basis of indeterminate shares did not arise, and the revisional interference under section 263 was unwarranted. The setting aside of the consequential assessment also followed from the invalidity of the revisional order.
Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was not sustainable, and the trust could not be treated as an association of persons on the footing suggested by the Revenue. The decision is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the beneficiaries are identifiable and their shares under a trust deed are determinate, revisional interference on the premise of indeterminate shares or invalidity of the trust deed is not justified.
TaxTMI 
