Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Rajasthan vs Her Highness Maharani Gayatri Devi Of ... on 14 September, 1971

Shri S.N. Agrawal, (Indl) vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 22 December, 2004

14. He referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Rajasthan v. Her Highness Maharani Gayatri Devi of Jaipur, (1971) 82 ITR 699, wherein the Apex Court has held that the question whether a particular income is an annuity or not does not depend on the amount received in a particular year. What has to be seen is what exactly was the intention of the settler in creating the trust. Did he intend to give the assess a pre-determined sum every year or did he intend to give her an aliquot share in the income of a fund? On that question, there can be only one answer and that is that he intended to give her an aliquot share in the income of the trust fund. An income cannot be an annuity in one year and an aliquot share in another year. It cannot change its character year after year.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Lucknow vs P. K. Banerjee (Dead) By Lrs on 9 September, 1980

In the instant case, as observed in the case of Her Highness Maharani Gayatri Devi of Jaipur (supra) what we have to see is the intention of the settlor, whether he wanted that the assessee should get a pre-determined sum every year or whether the assessee 672 should get the whole net income of the trust fund. Since the intention of the settlor was indisputably the latter one, the right of the assessee cannot be treated as an annuity. An additional factor which requires us to take the same view is that under the trust deed the trustees had been given the power to reinvest the proceeds of the Government securities which leads to the possibility of variation of the income and consequently of the amount to be received by the assessee. The fact that no such reinvestment had taken place during the relevant years is immaterial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 8 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Late Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan vs Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Hyderabad on 21 October, 1986

In Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Rajasthan v. Her Highness Maharani Gayatri Devi of Jaipur, 82 I.T.R. 699, this question arose again. The Maharaja of Jaipur had executed a deed of irrevocable trust whereunder the properties mentioned in the schedule thereto stood transferred to the trustee. The trust fund was to include the assets mentioned in the schedule and also such additions thereto and other capital moneys which might be received by the trustee. The assessee was one of the beneficiaries under the trust to whom the trustee was to pay during her lifetime 50 per cent of the income of the trust fund. The question was whether the assessee had a life interest in the corpus of the trust fund and her interest was therefore an 'asset' liable to wealth-tax or whether the assessee had only a right to an annuity and as such her right was exempt from wealth-tax in view of section 2(e) (iv) of the Act. It was held by this Court that since neither the trust fund nor the amount payable to the assessee was fixed and the only thing certain was that she was entitled to 50 per cent of the income of the trust fund, 1093 what the assessee was entitled to was not an annuity but an aliquot share in the income of the trust fund. The assessee had a life interest in the trust fund and the right of the assessee under the trust deed was not exempt from wealth-tax by virtue of the provisions of section 2(e) (iv).
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 29 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1