Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: dissolution of trust in Sudha Sureka,Kolkata vs Dcit, Central Cir-3(3), Kolkata on 2 July, 2025Matching Fragments
c) Amount transferred to the appellant beneficiary was already taxed in the hands of trustees and so, there cannot be double taxation (CIT vs. Managing Trustee, Nagore Daraha 57 ITR 321)
d) As per Section 161 of the Act, Trust can be assessed in its own name and section 166 provides for assessment of income in the hands of beneficiary (Saran Nayak vs. DCIT [2022] 45 taxmann.com 117 (Karnataka)
e) Amount received in pursuance of dissolution of the trust cannot be termed to be an amount received by the beneficiary without consideration to be assessed u/s 56(2) [Ashok C Pratap vs. Addl. CIT, ITA No. 4615/Mum/2011 (ITAT, Mumbai)]"
18. Going over the facts of the case, we find that the deed of trust was made on 11.12.2010 by assessee's mother Sudha Sureka creating a trust namely Aakash Sureka Educational Trust. There were two trustees i.e. Anand Sureka and Jyoti Sureka. We have gone through the decision cited by the assessee passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of ACIT vs. Mrs. Sandhya A Pratap in 2017 (2) TMI 1013 (ITAT-Mum) and the Hon'ble Bench has held thus:
"Addition on account of the receipts on dissolution of trusts under section 56(2)(vi) as income from other sources-Held that:- The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in assessee's husband case. Respectfully following and taking consistent view as taken by co-ordinate Bench in assessee's husband Shri Ashok C Pratap case [2012] (7) TMI 701 -ITAT Mumbai wherein held the assessee has received this amount on dissolution of trust in the capacity of beneficiaries as already been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, the amount received by the trust is in pursuance of dissolution of trust. The amount received in pursuance of dissolution of trust cannot be termed to be an amount received by the beneficiaries without consideration. The fact that the trust had borne the tax at maximum marginal rate on its income has also not been controverted. Therefore, the addition cannot be upheld on the applicability of clause (vi) of Sub-section (2) of Section 56 as the money received by the assessee is not without consideration, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition- decided against revenue."