1981 (8) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....income." The assessee is a sole beneficiary of Madhusudan Madhavdas Amersey Trust No. 11. The said of the trust disposed of a part of its share investment. As a consequence it realised long term capital gains of Rs. 2,22,422 and short term capital gains of Rs. 1,640. The assessee contended that the capital gains realised by the trustees was not exigible to tax in his hands as a beneficiary. This contention was sought to be supported by placing reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of CIT, Bombay City-1 vs. J.B. Wadia (1963) 48 ITR 135 (Bom) and in R.H. Pandit v. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 136 (Bom). The ITO rejected the contention of the assessee by stating that the assessee was a beneficiary for life. Secondly the trust deed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....art from relying on the order of the ITO, strongly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported at (1968) 68 ITR 503 (SC). In that case, inclusion of income from capital gains in the hands of the assessee by applying provisions of s. 64 of the Act was upheld. On the analogy of the said decision, the ld. Deptl. Rep. argued firstly that in the instant case trustees and beneficiaries were one and the same persons and, therefore, what was realised by the trustees could be said to have been realised by the beneficiaries. Secondly the concept of income under the IT Act was wide enough to take in its sweep realisations by way of capital gains. Shri Patil, on the other hand, relying on the order of the CIT(A), submitted that according to cl....