https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775874 The HC set aside the impugned order of the respondent/BAR, holding that Circular No. 13/2014 issued by CBDT under section 164 of the Act must be read down. The Court agreed with precedents from Karnataka HC and Madras HC that shares of beneficiaries in a trust are determinable if benefits are proportionate to investments, thus exempting such trusts from maximum marginal rate taxation. The Court rejected the contention that SEBI regulations prohibit naming beneficiaries in the trust deed. It held that judicial review under Art. 226 was appropriate despite availability of statutory appeal, given the wider public interest and the flawed interpretation by BAR. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the order and directing that Circular No. 13/2014 be construed consistently with settled legal principles regarding determinable trusts under section 164. en-us Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jul 2025 18:00:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775874 The HC set aside the impugned order of the respondent/BAR, holding that Circular No. 13/2014 issued by CBDT under section 164 of the Act must be read down. The Court agreed with precedents from Karnataka HC and Madras HC that shares of beneficiaries in a trust are determinable if benefits are proportionate to investments, thus exempting such trusts from maximum marginal rate taxation. The Court rejected the contention that SEBI regulations prohibit naming beneficiaries in the trust deed. It held that judicial review under Art. 226 was appropriate despite availability of statutory appeal, given the wider public interest and the flawed interpretation by BAR. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the order and directing that Circular No. 13/2014 be construed consistently with settled legal principles regarding determinable trusts under section 164. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775874