TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (2) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....87, dt. 24th July, 1990, pertaining to asst. yr. 1983-84: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the First Appellate Authority who held that the income of the Trustees should (not) be assessed in the status of AOP? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or by an indenture dt. 21st April, 1980 for the benefit of thirty beneficiaries. The trust deed describes the beneficiaries and also the share of each one of the beneficiaries in the trust funds. The trustees are names in the document and they had been authorised to carry on trade which in their decision was beneficial. The trustees had carried on business during the relevant accounting year ended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly Trust 1977 CTR (SC) 306:(1977) 108 ITR 555 (SC), N.V. Shanmugham & Co. vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 310 (SC) and CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna (1960) 39 ITR 546 (SC). The Tribunal found that the facts of these cases were different. 6. The Tribunal followed its earlier orders where the fact-situation was the same. Whether there was common interest of the beneficiaries or not is essentially a question of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayaka Enterprises and others and the Tribunal had rejected the reference applications holding that no referable question of law arose. The facts in those cases are the same. The Department had moved the High Court of Karnataka under s. 256(2) and the proceedings were civil petition Nos. 501 to 503/1989,51/1990, 174 to 178/90, 241/1990 and 38/1990, (since reported as CIT vs. K. Shyamaraju (Trustee)....