Section 161

Section 161 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 161, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• CWT v Estate of Late HMM Vikramsinhji of Gondal Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The department says our family trust is really a specific trust because the settlor used to show its income in his own return. The trustees have retained the income. Can it be taxed in the beneficiary's hands?
  No, not on those facts. Where the trust deed leaves distribution to the trustees' discretion and the income was in fact retained and not disbursed, the trust remains a discretionary trust and the income is not assessable in the beneficiary's hands. The failure of the settlor or his successor to appoint the persons who were to exercise the discretion does not convert a discretionary trust into a specific trust.
• CIT v Kamalini Khatau Supreme CourtHelps department
  A discretionary trust distributed income to me during the year and the trustees have already been assessed on it. Can the Assessing Officer also assess me?
  Yes — the Revenue has an option, and it can assess either the trustees or the beneficiary, but only in respect of income actually distributed to and received by the beneficiary during the accounting year. Section 164 is not a code in itself; it fixes only how tax is charged, while the liability to be assessed comes from s.161, and s.5 read with s.4 lets the beneficiary be taxed directly on what he actually received.
• CIT v Toshoku Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I credited commission in my books to a foreign selling agent who works entirely outside India, and remitted it later. Is that commission taxable in India in his hands?
  No. The Supreme Court held that a credit entry in the exporter's own books is not receipt by the non-resident: a credit balance without more is only a debt, and a book entry in the debtor's own books is not payment discharging it, so the amounts were neither received nor deemed received in India. Nor did the commission accrue or arise here. Under the Explanation to section 9(1)(i), where all the operations of a business are not carried out in India only the part of the income reasonably attributable to Indian operations is deemed to accrue here - and these agents carried out no operations in India at all.
• N.V. Shanmugham & Co v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  A court receiver is running the dissolved firm's business and paying each of us a monthly sum. The department wants to tax the profits as an AOP. Can it, when we are fighting each other?
  Yes, on these facts. The receivers themselves are not an association of persons — they are representatives — but the persons they represent were held to be an AOP, because the control and management of the business was unified, the profits were earned on behalf of persons having a common interest created by the court's order, and all of them took the monthly payments. Liability to tax depends on the earning of profits by a unit, not on how the profits are ultimately divided.
• C.R. Nagappa v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  The trustees of my settlement are being assessed on the trust income. The department has now also included the same income in my own assessment under s.64. Does s.161(2) stop it?
  No. Section 161(2) does not deny the Assessing Officer the option to assess the person represented instead of the representative assessee; it only requires that when the representative assessee is the one assessed, he is assessed under Chapter XV and not under any other provision. But the same income cannot be charged twice — the Court recorded that the assessments already made on the minor beneficiaries would be annulled and any tax recovered refunded.
• Ganesh Chhababhai Vallabhai Patel v. CIT (Gujarat High Court) — a s.161(1) assessment on the trustee carries the rate applicable to the beneficiary's TOTAL income, and s.154 rectification lies where it did not High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  Our trust was assessed under section 161 on the beneficiaries' shares at the rate their shares alone attracted. Four years later the Assessing Officer rectified it under section 154 and applied each beneficiary's personal rate on his whole income. Could he do that in rectification?
  Yes. The Gujarat High Court held that it is settled from CIT v. Kamalini Khatau that section 161(1) permits the Income-tax Officer to assess either the representative assessee or the person represented — the latter by force of section 166 — and that where he assesses the trustee, the assessment must be made in the same status as the beneficiary and at the rate applicable to that beneficiary's TOTAL income, which includes his income from outside the trust. Applying the rate relatable only to the beneficiary's share of the trust income was therefore a mistake apparent from the record, and calling for the beneficiaries' own assessment orders in order to work out that rate was not a fresh inquiry that took the case outside section 154. The Court also rejected the trust's reliance on the Central Board of Direct Taxes' circular of 24 February 1967, but in doing so it stated the principle the circular lays down: once the choice has been made to tax either the trustee or the beneficiary, it is not open to the Department to go behind it and assess the other at the same time. That principle was held simply to have no application, because the beneficiaries had not been assessed again — only the rate on the trustee's assessment had been corrected.
• CIT v Marsons Beneficiary Trust High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  Our private trust has determinate beneficiaries and the deed lets the trustees carry on business. The Assessing Officer has assessed the whole business income as one unit in the status of AOP. Is that right?
  For years before assessment year 1985-86, no. Where the shares of the beneficiaries are known and determinate, s.164 has no application, the trustees must be assessed under s.161(1), each beneficiary's share is taxed as if it formed part of that beneficiary's income and the trustees' liability is the sum of those amounts — and this is so whatever the nature of the income, including business income. For assessment year 1985-86 onward this is displaced by s.161(1A), which charges the maximum marginal rate where the income consists of or includes profits and gains of business; the judgment expressly says at para 2 that it does not deal with that provision.
• Seva Trust v ITO ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  Our trust stopped running its distributorship itself and let another concern run it for a monthly fee. Does the income still 'consist of or include profits and gains of business' for s.161(1A)?
  On these facts, yes. The Tribunal held that the distributorship agreement was a commercial asset, that letting it out temporarily did not take the income out of the business head, and that the income was business income attracting s.161(1A), which was inserted with effect from 1 April 1985 and which the Tribunal found to contain no ambiguity whatsoever. The appeals were dismissed and the assessment in the status of association of persons was upheld.
• Statutory position — s.160: the five, and only five, classes of representative assessee, and what Explanations 1 and 2 do to an unwritten trust CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Assessing Officer has issued a notice describing me as the 'representative assessee' of a family trust. Who can lawfully be made a representative assessee, and does being called one make me the assessee?
  Section 160(1) is an exhaustive list of five classes and nobody outside it can be made a representative assessee: (i) the agent of a non-resident, in respect of income of the non-resident specified in section 9(1), including a person treated as an agent under section 163; (ii) the guardian or manager of a minor, lunatic or idiot who is entitled to receive or is in receipt of the income on that person's behalf; (iii) the Court of Wards, the Administrator-General, the Official Trustee or any receiver or manager (including any person, whatever his designation, who in fact manages property on behalf of another) appointed by or under an order of a court; (iv) a trustee appointed under a trust declared by a duly executed instrument in writing, whether testamentary or otherwise, including a wakf deed valid under the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913; and (v) a trustee appointed under an oral trust. Section 160(2) then says that every representative assessee shall be deemed to be an assessee for the purposes of the Act, so yes — you are an assessee, with an assessee's rights of appeal as well as an assessee's exposure.
• Statutory position — s.161(1) and (2): the representative assessee is taxed 'in like manner and to the same extent' as the person represented, and cannot be assessed under any other provision CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Assessing Officer has assessed our trust in one order on the whole of the trust income at slab rates of its own. The shares of the beneficiaries are fixed and known. Is that how section 161 works?
  No. Section 161(1) makes the representative assessee liable to assessment in his own name, but it deems that assessment to be made upon him in his representative capacity only, and it caps the charge: the tax 'shall, subject to the other provisions contained in this Chapter, be levied upon and recovered from him in like manner and to the same extent as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from the person represented by him'. Where the shares are determinate the measure of the trustee's liability is therefore the liability of each beneficiary separately, not a single composite charge on the trust. Section 161(2) is the other half of the protection: where a person is assessable under Chapter XV in the capacity of a representative assessee, he shall not, in respect of that income, be assessed under any other provision of the Act.
• Statutory position — s.163: who may be treated as the agent of a non-resident, the broker proviso, and the s.163(2) hearing that cannot be skipped CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Assessing Officer wants to treat my company as the agent of a foreign supplier because we have dealings with it. On what basis can he, and what am I entitled to before he does it?
  Section 163(1) defines 'agent', in relation to a non-resident, as including any person in India who is employed by or on behalf of the non-resident; or who has any business connection with the non-resident; or from or through whom the non-resident is in receipt of any income, whether directly or indirectly; or who is the trustee of the non-resident — and it includes also any other person, whether resident or non-resident, who has acquired by means of a transfer a capital asset in India. Section 163(2) is a hard condition precedent: 'No person shall be treated as the agent of a non-resident unless he has had an opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer as to his liability to be treated as such.' The section also carries an Explanation providing that for the purposes of sub-section (1) the expression 'business connection' has the meaning assigned to it in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(i); it is absent from the editions up to 2001, so it was inserted after that year.
• Statutory position — s.162: the representative assessee's right to recover and to retain, and the Assessing Officer's certificate that caps his exposure CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  I am about to be treated as the agent of a non-resident and I still hold money payable to him. Can I hold that money back against the tax, and how do I stop the Department later saying I should have retained more?
  Yes, and section 162(2) is available to you before any order is made against you — it applies to 'any representative assessee, or any person who apprehends that he may be assessed as a representative assessee'. Such a person may retain, out of any money payable by him to the principal, a sum equal to his estimated liability under Chapter XV; and if the principal disputes the amount, he may secure from the Assessing Officer a certificate stating the amount to be so retained pending final settlement, and that certificate 'shall be his warrant for retaining that amount'. Section 162(1) gives the separate right, after payment, to recover what he has paid from the person on whose behalf it was paid, or to retain an equal amount out of moneys in his possession or coming to him in his representative capacity. Section 162(3) is the protection people miss: the amount recoverable from him at final settlement shall not exceed the amount specified in the certificate, except to the extent that he then has in his hands additional assets of the principal.
• Statutory position — s.166 and s.167: the Department may assess the beneficiary direct, and s.167 is about remedies against property, NOT a bar on double taxation CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Department has assessed our trustee under section 161 and has now issued a notice to me as beneficiary on the same income. Which section stops it doing both, and is it section 167?
  It is not section 167. Section 166 is the enabling provision: 'Nothing in the foregoing sections in this Chapter shall prevent either the direct assessment of the person on whose behalf or for whose benefit income therein referred to is receivable, or the recovery from such person of the tax payable in respect of such income.' Section 167 is headed 'Remedies against property in cases of representative assessees' and does something quite different: it gives the Assessing Officer the same remedies against all property of any kind vested in or under the control or management of a representative assessee as he would have against the property of any person liable to pay tax, and in as full and ample a manner, 'whether the demand is raised against the representative assessee or against the beneficiary direct'. It is a recovery-reach provision in the Revenue's favour, not a taxpayer protection. The bar on taxing the same income twice comes from elsewhere: from section 161(2), from the Central Board of Direct Taxes' own instruction of 24 February 1967, and from the case law on the exercise of the option.
• Statutory position — s.161(1A): one rupee of business profit in a private trust puts the WHOLE of the trust income at the maximum marginal rate, and only the will-trust proviso saves it CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  Our family trust has determinate shares, mostly interest and rent, and a small share of profit from a partnership business. The Assessing Officer has charged the entire trust income at the maximum marginal rate. Can he, when the shares are fixed?
  Yes, and the fact that the shares are determinate is irrelevant. Section 161(1A) opens 'Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)', so the beneficiary-rate protection in section 161(1) is displaced entirely: where any income in respect of which a person mentioned in section 160(1)(iv) is liable as representative assessee 'consists of, or includes, profits and gains of business', tax is charged on the WHOLE of the income in respect of which he is so liable at the maximum marginal rate. The single proviso is narrow and cumulative — it disapplies the sub-section only where the profits and gains are receivable under a trust declared by a person BY WILL, exclusively for the benefit of a relative dependent on him for support and maintenance, and that trust is the ONLY trust so declared by him. Sub-section (1A) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1984 with effect from 1 April 1985.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.