9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Applicability of Section 64(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Interpretation of "benefit" under Section 64(1)(vii). 3. Determination of beneficial interest during the trust's subsistence. 4. Deferred benefit and its impact on clubbing income. Comprehensive Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis 1. Applicability of Section 64(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act The primary question referred to the court was whether the provisions of Section 64(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act apply to the income arising from the trust funds invested in the firms where the beneficiaries are minors. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had held that Section 64(1)(vii) did not apply, which was contested by the Department. 2. Interpretation of "Benefit" under Section 64(1)(vii) The Department argued that Section 64(1) was attracted if a minor child derived any benefit under the trust, either by receipt of income or by having a beneficial interest in the income. The term "benefit" was significant, especially with the inclusion of the words "immediate or deferred" before it, suggesting that even deferred benefits should be considered. 3. Determination of Beneficial Interest During the Trust's Subsistence The court examined whether the minor beneficiaries had any enforceable right against the trustee during the trust's existence. The trust deed explicitly stated that income should be accumulated and not expended or disbursed during the trust's existence. Therefore, the minor children had no right to enforce any claim against the trustee for the accumulated income, indicating no beneficial interest during the trust's subsistence. 4. Deferred Benefit and Its Impact on Clubbing Income The court noted that the deferred benefit would only be realized after the trust's termination, beyond the period of the beneficiaries' minority. The court referred to previous judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Manilal Dhanji's case, which clarified that Section 64(1)(vii) applies only if the benefit is received during the minor's minority. Since the trust provided for accumulation and payment beyond the minors' minority, the deferred benefit could not be included in the father's income under Section 64(1)(vii). Conclusion The court concluded that since the income was to be accumulated and not received by the minors during their minority, it could not be included in the father's income. The court aligned with the decisions of the Bombay, Gujarat, and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, holding that the deferred benefit payable after the trust's termination did not attract the provisions of Section 64(1)(vii). The answer to the referred question was in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
|
