Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2000) 02 SC CK 0125

Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad vs Trustees of HEH, Nizam''s Misc. Trust, A.P.

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 15 February 2000 · Citation: AIR 2000 SC 2222 : (2000) AIRSCW 2271 : (2000) 244 ITR 713 : (2000) 5 JT 321 : (2000) 4 SCALE 141 : (2000) 5 SCC 311 : (2000) 4 Supreme 353

HON’BLE JUDGES
N. Santosh Hedge, J · D. P. Wadhwa, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No''s. 8158-60 of 1995 and 5929 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 304 words
1.

These appeals are by the Revenue against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and pertained to assessment years 1981-82,1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. In these appeals the question which arises for consideration is as under:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow 71/2 % of the net income of the Trust after deducting from its total income the remuneration paid to the Trustees as expenditure for administering the Trust under Sections 57(1) and 19(1) of the IT Act."

2.

In Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Nizam''s Miscellaneous Trust, (1986) 160 ITR 253 for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, Andhra Pradesh High Court considered this question and stated as under:

"In our opinion 71/2% of the net receipts of the income of the trust after deducting from its total income the remuneration paid to the trustees constitutes reasonable expenditure for administering the trust under Sections 57(i) and 19(i)of the Act."

3.

This judgment had not been appealed against by the Revenue. Following this judgment, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Appellate Tribunal declined to refer the question to the High Court for its opinion. High Court also dismissed the reference application filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved Revenue has come to this Court.

4.

From the question itself it would appear that it is more a question of fact than a question of law. Since the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court for the earlier years reported in (1986) 160 ITR 253 has not been appealed against by the Revenue, we see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.

5.

These appeals are, therefore, dismissed.