Gift Tax Act, 1990
Section 3, 4(1)(chha), (Ja) and 12 r/w
Trust Act, 1882
Section 3 r/w
Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Section 160
Get the benefit of exemption of tax under section 4(1)(chha) and (Ja) of the Gift Tax Act, 1990 read with section 3 of the Trust Act, 1882–– On a plain reading of Section 4(1) (ja) of the Act, 1990 Appellate Division has found that that if the gift is made to the son, daughter, father, mother, husband, wife, full brother or full sister of the donor, then the said gift shall be exempt from the gift tax or be excluded from the ambit of gift tax chargeable under section 3 of the Gift Tax Act, 1990. ––This Division is of the view that the High Court Division rightly held that the assessing officer (Extra Assessment Commissioner of Taxes) and the appellate authorities below did not commit any illegality in imposing gift tax as contemplated under section 3 of the Gift Tax Act, 1990 and in rejecting the claim of exemption; because, in view of the provisions of the Gift Tax Act, 1990, the claim of exemption of the assessee-applicant does not have any legal basis. .....Dr. Muhammad Yunus =VS= Commissioner of Taxes, Dhaka, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 154] ....View Full Judgment

Charitable society can invest its unspent money for getting more money to be spent in charity and when there is absolutely no bar under the Societies Registration Act and when the Memorandum of Association of a society has authorised the same to invest their money not imme­diately required the same may be invested. BRAC vs Professor Mozaffar Ahmed 54 DLR (AD) 36.

The Trust Act has provided for certain restrictions on the investment of trust money. The Societies Registration Act contains no limitation on investment to be made by a society. A society cannot be construed as a trust, and the provisions of the Trust Act have no manner of application in the functioning of a society. Therefore, the embargo in the Trust Act has no manner of application in the case of any society registered under the Societies Registration Act. (Per Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury, CJ) BRAC v. Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others, 22 BLD (AD) 41.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2) r/w
Penal Code, 1860
Sections 409, 405 and 109 and
Emergency Power Rules, 2007
Rule 5 r/w
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958
Sections 5, 10(1A)
Trust Act, 1882
Section 23, 94
ICCPR
Article 14(6)
Begum Khaleda Zia under section 409 of the Penal Code as well as section 5(2) of the PCA, 1947. Her sentence was enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years— Appellate Division’s summary of core findings are, accordingly, enumerated hereinbelow:
I. The convictions under section 409 of the Penal Code, 1860 for alleged criminal breach of trust in the absence of the constitutive ingredients of such offence as defined under section 405 with illustrations are misconceived and have resulted in a travesty of justice.
II. To be an offence of Criminal Breach of Trust, there must be an entrustment/dominion over the property belonging to another and the same has to be dishonestly misappropriated as per section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860 but in the instant case, there was no element of entrustment upon the Appellant Begum Khaleda Zia.
III. The general principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the State has to prove allegation(s) against an accused beyond all reasonable doubts but both the courts below have violated the said principle and convicted the Appellants on an trumped-up charges without seeking the aid of the applicable law.
IV. Both the High Court Division and the Trial Court below passed their respective judgments on the basis of hypothetical presumptions and accusations not based on legal evidences.
V. The ACC has stepped beyond its jurisdiction to have initiated the instant criminal proceeding as the issue revolves around a private trust and there is no accusation/ complaint from the relevant party concerned.
VI. The very initiation of proceedings is barred by law and as such not only the judgments below but also the entire proceedings should, therefore, be set aside giving benefit to all individuals who have been maliciously prosecuted.
Appellate Division passes the following order:
All the appeals are, hereby, allowed by this Division’s unanimous decision. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 1676 of 2018 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 2215, 2292 of 2018 and Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2018, and the judgment and order dated 8.2.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 5, Dhaka in Special Case No. 17 of 2017 are, hereby, set aside. Consequently, all the Appellants having not been found guilty of the charges leveled against them, stand fully acquitted. The proceedings constituting the subject matter of these appeals are found to be a manifest contrived misapplication of the law as tantamount to malicious prosecution. This judgment shall also extend to other convicted persons who, however, did not prefer any appeal. This decision shall, resultantly restore the Appellant’s and all other convict’s dignity, reaffirm their innocence, and thereby, put an end to the unwarranted proceedings initiated against them. .....Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= Durnity Daman Commission, (Criminal), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 14] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 73 and 74 are not intended to apply to a contentious case, where proceeding by way of suit is appropriate, but cases appropriate to a summary procedure where the facts are not disputed or cannot reasonably be disputed. Khalid Hamidul Huq vs Nafisa Chowdhury and others 47 DLR (AD) 104.

It provides that whenever any vacancy or disqualification in respect of a trustee occurs and it is found impracticable to appoint a new trustee under section 73 of the Trusts Act, the beneficiary may apply to the .principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for the appointment of a trustee or a new trustee.
The scope of section 74 of the Trusts Act is limited only to cases where the trust is an undisputed and executable one. In the instant case, the creation, existence, validity and executability of the trust itself is being disputed, the trial court was correct in holding that if the Miscellaneous Case under section 74 of the Trusts Act is proceeded with, conflicting decisions may arise leading to serious complications. The Miscellaneous case was rightly stayed till the disposal of the Partition Suit. Khalid Hamidul Huq Vs. Mrs. Nafisa Chowdhury and others, 15 BLD (AD) 79.

Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary provisions) Order, 1972
Article 2, 3
Martial Law Regulation No.VII of 1977
Articles 4 and 5
General Clauses Act
Section 5(1)(b)(3)
Acting President’s order No.1 of 1972
Section 6
President’s order No.16 of 1972
Article 2(1)
Trust Act, 1882
Sections 94 and 95
Abandoned property— The respondent being a citizen and permanent resident of Bangladesh and having been found to be deemed to be a citizen upon conferment of citizenship under the provisions of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary provisions) Order, 1972, and under Article 3 thereof the Government considering the circumstances having decided as such which shall be final and the appellants have as well failed to prove that he is otherwise disqualified under the concerned laws including the law on abandoned properties.
The onus lies on the Government to substantiate that the plaintiff had abandoned his domicile of choice. But there is no iota of evidence. Rather there are overwhelming evidence in favour of the plaintiffs animo revertendi, that is, leaving behind the members of his family in Bangladesh, management of his industry by his son, his property in Bangladesh, his return to Bangladesh in 1976 within statutory period of seven years. The appeals are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. .....Sena Kalayan Sangstha =VS= Haji Sufi Fazal Ahmed, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 188] ....View Full Judgment

Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Section 44(4)(b), 2(20)(a), 2(65), 16
Income Tax Act, 1922
Section 60(1)-(a)(3)
Constitution of Bangladesh
Articles 15, 17, 83
Private Universities Act, 1992/ 2010
Societies Registration Act, 1860
Companies Act, 1994
Section 28
The Trust Act, 1882
Private university is a juristic person— The observation of the High Court Division that tax on private universities will increase the education cost of the students is not correct, since income tax is a direct tax payable only when a private university earns income; In case of loss no tax is payable. —However, the writ-petitioner-respondent private universities may not be required paying tax if it enjoys tax exemption under any lawful arrangement. .....Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= North South University, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 63] ....View Full Judgment