9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the income of minor sons should be clubbed with the income of the father in his individual status for the assessment year 1979-80 under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved a partner in a firm, representing his Hindu undivided family, with his three minor sons benefiting from the partnership. The dispute centered on whether the minor sons' income should be included with the father's income. The Income-tax Tribunal initially ruled that section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act did not apply when the individual had no income. The Tribunal referred the question to the High Court, seeking clarification on the matter. The court highlighted the amendment to section 64 of the Income-tax Act, effective from April 1, 1976. Before the amendment, the provision required the admission of a minor child to the benefits of partnership for their income to be included in the father's income. However, post-amendment, this condition was removed, making the minor child's income automatically considered as the father's income. Referring to a similar case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the High Court ruled that even if the assessee had no income in his individual capacity, the income of the minor child should be treated as the father's income under the amended law. Consequently, the High Court held that the share income of the minor sons in the partnership firm must be assessed in the father's individual capacity under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. In conclusion, the High Court answered the referred question in favor of the Revenue, indicating that the share income of the minor sons should indeed be assessed in the father's individual capacity.
|
