https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465691 The dominant issue was whether CPC could levy surcharge at 37% on a private trust's intimation under s. 143(1) when the trust had itself clubbed income in the hands of the beneficiary's parent under s. 64(1A). The Tribunal held that, under s. 166, the trust is assessable in the same capacity as the beneficiary, i.e., as an individual, and surcharge/slab computation must follow that legal position; neither the assessee's mistaken self-computation nor Revenue's processing can alter the statutory scheme. Consequently, the appellate order was set aside, the s. 143(1) intimation was held erroneous for not following the statute, and CPC was directed to revise the intimation by taxing the trust with individual slab benefits. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 10:53:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465691 The dominant issue was whether CPC could levy surcharge at 37% on a private trust's intimation under s. 143(1) when the trust had itself clubbed income in the hands of the beneficiary's parent under s. 64(1A). The Tribunal held that, under s. 166, the trust is assessable in the same capacity as the beneficiary, i.e., as an individual, and surcharge/slab computation must follow that legal position; neither the assessee's mistaken self-computation nor Revenue's processing can alter the statutory scheme. Consequently, the appellate order was set aside, the s. 143(1) intimation was held erroneous for not following the statute, and CPC was directed to revise the intimation by taxing the trust with individual slab benefits. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465691