TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (3) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, referring for our answer the following questions of law : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the endowment alleged by Seth Gopaldas is valid according to law ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that only the extra income of the Mandir, which has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest was credited in favour of the temple. The ITO found that the assets of the temple were assets of Seth Gopaldas and the income should be assessed in the hands of Seth Gopaldas. He, however, made protective assessment on the temple. There were two appeals filed before the AAC, who quashed the protective assessments made by the ITO, and held that Seth Gopaldas be taxed on the entire income. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not genuine or sham. All that the learned standing counsel argued before us is that the Tribunal has not considered whether the deed was revocable or not. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred us to s. 61 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which says that all income arising to any person by virtue of a revocable transfer of assets shall be deemed to be income of the transferor. Section 61 ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show that any income of the temple was utilised by Seth Gopaldas. All that is shown is that Seth Gopaldas paid to the temple interest at 8% and, in the opinion of the Tribunal, Gopaldas should have paid interest at 12%. Now, as Gopaldas paid interest at 8% on the money borrowed from the temple, his taxable income in his assessment would be more as compared to what it would have been had he paid i....