TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 164: Circular No. 13/2014 Read Down to Exempt Determinable Trusts from Max Marginal Tax Rate</h1> <h3>Equity Intelligence Aif Trust Versus The Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Anr.</h3> Equity Intelligence Aif Trust Versus The Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Anr. - 2025:DHC:6170 - DB ISSUES: Whether Circular No. 13/2014 dated 28.07.2014 issued by CBDT is ultra vires sections 160 and 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Whether a Category III Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) trust must have the names of beneficiaries explicitly mentioned in the original Trust Deed to avoid being treated as an 'indeterminate' trust under section 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Whether the provisions of SEBI Regulations and SEBI Act prohibit mentioning names of investors in the original Trust Deed prior to registration and obtaining certificate from SEBI.Whether the impugned order of the Board for Advance Rulings (BAR) relying on Circular No. 13/2014 to treat the petitioner trust as 'indeterminate' is sustainable.Whether the doctrine of impossibility applies to the conflict between SEBI Regulations and Circular No. 13/2014 regarding naming beneficiaries in the original Trust Deed.Whether the petitioner's writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable despite availability of statutory appeal under section 245W of the Income Tax Act. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The impugned Circular No. 13/2014 is to be read down and is not to be applied in a manner that conflicts with SEBI Regulations and the SEBI Act, particularly regarding the requirement to name beneficiaries in the original Trust Deed of Category III AIFs.A trust is not 'indeterminate' under section 164 of the Income Tax Act merely because the names of beneficiaries are not set out in the original Trust Deed; the determinability of beneficiaries' shares at or after the formation of the trust is the real test.The SEBI Regulations and section 12 of the SEBI Act prohibit an entity from accepting investments or naming beneficiaries in the original Trust Deed prior to obtaining registration and certificate from SEBI, making the requirement in Circular No. 13/2014 impossible to comply with for Category III AIFs.The impugned order of the BAR is unsustainable as it overlooks binding judicial precedents and the legal impossibility created by the conflicting statutory provisions and Circular No. 13/2014.The doctrine of impossibility ('lex non cogit ad impossibilia') applies, excusing compliance with the requirement to name beneficiaries in the original Trust Deed when such compliance is prohibited by SEBI Regulations and the SEBI Act.The writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable notwithstanding availability of statutory appeal, given the wide impact of the issue and the BAR's failure to consider settled law and the conflict in Circular No. 13/2014. RATIONALE: The Court examined the provisions of sections 160, 161, 164, 115U, 115UB, and 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012, and section 12 of the SEBI Act, 1992.The Court analyzed CBDT Circular No. 13/2014, which clarifies tax treatment of AIFs as non-charitable trusts under section 164, particularly regarding taxation at the Maximum Marginal Rate where beneficiaries are unnamed in the original Trust Deed.The Court considered earlier CBDT Circular No. 281/1980 and judicial precedents including Division Bench judgments of Karnataka and Madras High Courts, which held that beneficiaries' shares need not be named in the original Trust Deed if they are determinable subsequently, thus excluding application of section 164.The Court identified a conflict between Circular No. 13/2014's requirement to name beneficiaries in the original Trust Deed and SEBI Regulations that prohibit accepting investments or naming investors before registration, leading to an 'impossibility' in law.The Court applied the doctrine of impossibility ('lex non cogit ad impossibilia'), supported by authoritative Supreme Court precedents, excusing compliance with impossible statutory requirements.The Court found paragraph 6 of Circular No. 13/2014, which limits its applicability based on High Court jurisdictional decisions, to be contrary to settled constitutional principles of binding precedent and uniform application of law.The Court held that the BAR erred in ignoring binding precedents and the legal impossibility created by conflicting statutory provisions and Circular No. 13/2014, warranting judicial interference under Article 226.
TaxTMI 