https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465016 HC held that for a discretionary beneficiary trust, s.164 is the charging provision and Explanation 2 mandates application of the "maximum marginal rate" as the rate applicable to the highest income slab for an AOP, leaving no scope for a different construction. Relying on precedent, HC found an error apparent on the face of the record and held that the Tribunal erred in directing assessment otherwise than at the uniform maximum marginal rate. The tax appeals were allowed and the matters remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in accordance with law, after notice and hearing to the assessee trusts. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 19:00:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465016 HC held that for a discretionary beneficiary trust, s.164 is the charging provision and Explanation 2 mandates application of the "maximum marginal rate" as the rate applicable to the highest income slab for an AOP, leaving no scope for a different construction. Relying on precedent, HC found an error apparent on the face of the record and held that the Tribunal erred in directing assessment otherwise than at the uniform maximum marginal rate. The tax appeals were allowed and the matters remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in accordance with law, after notice and hearing to the assessee trusts. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465016