Cit Vs. Rakesh Mohan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: a.n. mahajan for the revenue atul mehra for the assessee. in the allahabad high court r.k. agrawal & prakash krishna, jj. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammad - 6,95,383 made on account of value of shares transferred to the trust ? 2. whether in law and on facts of the case the tribunal was justified in holding that there was a valid trust in existence even if the basic conditions of section 6 of the indian trust act, were not satisfied fulfilled ?' 2. briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:orderthe income tax appellate tribunal, delhi has referred the following two questions of law under section 27(1) of the wealth tax act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for opinion to this court:'1. whether in law and on facts of the case the tribunal was justified in confirming the cwt(a)'s decision deleting the addition of rs. 6,95,383 made on account of value of shares transferred to the trust ?2. whether in law and on facts of the case the tribunal was justified in holding that there was a valid trust in existence even if the basic conditions of section 6 of the indian trust act, were not satisfied fulfilled ?'2. briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:the reference relates to the assessment year 1981-82.3. we have heard shri a.n. mahajan, the learned standing counsel for the department and shri atul mehra has filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. we find that this court in cit v. comilla (it reference no. 41 of 1993, dated 10-3-2005) and cwt v. rakesh mohan (wt reference no. 46 of 1993, dated 10-3-2005) which relates to the other members of the same family has answered the similar questions in f avour of the assessee and against the revenue.4. respectfully following the aforesaid decision we answer both the questions referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following two questions of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this court:

'1. Whether in law and on facts of the case the Tribunal was justified in confirming the CWT(A)'s decision deleting the addition of Rs. 6,95,383 made on account of value of shares transferred to the Trust ?

2. Whether in law and on facts of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a valid trust in existence even if the basic conditions of section 6 of the Indian Trust Act, were not satisfied fulfilled ?'

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:

The reference relates to the assessment year 1981-82.

3. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel for the department and Shri Atul Mehra has filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. We find that this court in CIT v. Comilla (IT Reference No. 41 of 1993, dated 10-3-2005) and CWT v. Rakesh Mohan (WT Reference No. 46 of 1993, dated 10-3-2005) which relates to the other members of the same family has answered the similar questions in f avour of the assessee and against the revenue.

4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision we answer both the questions referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.