Rajasthan H.C : The provisions of s. 164(1) itself are not applicable and both the beneficiaries and their shares are known and determinate

High Court Of Rajasthan

CIT vs. Pooranchand

Sections 164, 164(1), 256, 256(2)

K.C. Agrawal, C.J. & M.B. Sharma, J.

DB IT Ref. Appln. No. 16 of 1987

24th April, 1991 

Counsel Appeared

N.M. Ranka, for the Assessee : V.K. Singhal, for the Revenue

BY THE COURT :

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following questions of law arise in this reference : “

(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of s. 164(1) itself are not applicable and both the beneficiaries and their shares are known and determinate ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the AAC about the charging of rate of tax by treating the assessee as an AOPs on the rates applicable to the income of such association ?

(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the Department and thereby upholding the decision of the AAC to treat the assessee as a specified trust with known beneficiaries and their determinate shares and also that the assessee is not liable to be charged to tax at the maximum rate under s. 164(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?”

The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the same to the High Court.

[Citation: 192 ITR 107]

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security