Shri Ganesh Valabhai Family Trust - Applicant(S v. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Opponent(S
High Court
03 Aug 2006 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Shri Ganesh Valabhai Family Trust - Applicant(S v. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Opponent(S
Date of order
03 Aug 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Shri Ganesh Valabhai Family Trust - Applicant(S v. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Opponent(S, the High Court (2006) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ]of the judgment ?Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?5[Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil ]Judge? ============================...
Decision: This Reference is also disposed of in the same terms as referred to above. [R.S.Garg, J.] kamlesh*
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
ITR/266/1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 266 OF 1995
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================
1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed ]to see the judgment ?
2To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ]of the judgment ?Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?5[Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil ]Judge?
=========================================================
SHRI GANESH VALABHAI FAMILY TRUST - Applicant(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Opponent(s)
=========================================================Appearance :MRS. SWATI SOPARKARfor Applicant(s).MR. MANISH R. BHATT for Opponent(s).=========================================================
CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 03/08/2006
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG)
Heard Smt. Swati Soparkar, learned Counsel for
ITR/266/19952/4JUDGMENT
the Assessee, and Shri M.R.Bhatt, learned Counsel for the opponent-Revenue.
2.questions for opinion of the High Court :
The Tribunal has referred the following
“1)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee trust was not a genuine trust and that assessment of the income in question was liable to be made in the status of A.O.P. and that maximum marginal rate was chargeable under section 167-A?
2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in the alternative the assessee-Trust was a discretionary trust because of the fact
that shares of ultimate and real beneficiarieswereunknownor
indeterminate and hence provisions of section 164 would not be attracted and tax maximummarginalratewouldbe
3.In a group of matters relating to various Family Trusts, certain orders adverse to the interest of the Assessee were made and the matters came to this Court in a reference made under Section-256(1) of the Income Tax Act.
4.On the earlier occasion, in I.T.R. No.331/1991, decided on 2[nd] August, 2005, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the finding of the Tribunal that the Trust was not genuine, was proper, but, it referred the matter back to the Tribunal with the observation that the Tribunal would be obliged to decide the question that in whose hands, the income ultimately came and who can be held liable to pay the tax. The Court also directed that the Tribunal may decide the question or may send back the matter to the Income Tax Officer for decision afresh. Following the said judgement of the Division Bench, we have disposed of certain matters with the very same directions. This Reference is also disposed of in the same terms as referred to above.
[R.S.Garg, J.]
kamlesh*
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.