Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Vimalbhai Ramanlal Family Trust
High Court
11 Nov 1998 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Vimalbhai Ramanlal Family Trust
Date of order
11 Nov 1998
Assessment year(s)
1978-79
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Vimalbhai Ramanlal Family Trust, the High Court (1998) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 129 of 1984
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
�1 to 5: No
-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Versus
VIMALBHAI RAMANLAL FAMILY TRUST
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR BB NAIK for MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner
SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
Date of decision: 11/11/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT (per R. Balia, J.) �The following question of law has been referred to this court for decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', arising out of its
appellate order for Assessment Year 1978-79.
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the shares of beneficiaries where determinate?"
2.�The learned counsel for the Revenue candidly stated that the facts of the case are similar to the one that arose in CIT v. Tanvi Sajani Family Trust reported in 209 ITR 497 and the answer to the question is governed by the decision therein in favour of the assessee in which, interpreting a similar trust deed, it was held that the shares of the beneficiaries were determinate and there was obligation on the trustees to distribute the income of the trust.
3.�Following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to above in affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
------
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.