Bertie Pinto Foundation vs Sixth Income-Tax Officer on 24 January, 1995
There is no doubt about the fact that Clause (i) of the above Explanation would not be applicable to the present case inasmuch as there is a plurality of beneficiaries in this case whereas the said Clause (i) applies to the case of a single beneficiary. However, Clause (ii) as above would surely be applicable to the present case. Although it is required under the said Clause (ii) that the individual shares of the person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the income of the trust is received shall be deemed to be indeterminate or unknown unless the individual shares of the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit such income is receivable, are expressly stated in the order of the court or the instrument of trust ... as the case may be and are ascertainable as such on the date of such order, instrument or deed, yet it has been held by various authorities that it does not mean that the names of the beneficiaries must be provided in the Trust Deed and their respective shares should also be specifically mentioned. It would suffice if the trust deed has got certain recitals with the help of which the shares of the beneficiaries, at any future point of time, would be possible to be ascertained in a clear and unambiguous manner and, therefore, the beneficial interests or shares in the income of the trust can also be ascertained in the same manner. This view has been taken by the ITAT, Pune Bench, in the case of Mirje Family Trust v. ITO [1986] 18 ITD 25. The Tribunal discussed in that case that although specification of the shares for all times to come, in the trust deed, is contemplated, yet the shares may vary depending upon the vicissitudes through which beneficiaries go (death, marriage, renunciation, etc.) but if such contingencies are mentioned in the deed, the shares would still remain specific and ascertainable.