9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Set-off of loss from one partnership against share income of minor children from another partnership. 2. Interpretation of "total income" under the Income-tax Act. 3. Applicability of Section 64(1)(iii) and Section 70(1) of the Income-tax Act. 4. Clarificatory nature of Explanation 2 to Section 64(2). 5. Relevant judicial precedents and their impact on the case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Set-off of Loss from One Partnership Against Share Income of Minor Children from Another Partnership: The primary issue is whether the assessee's share of loss from M/s. Tyre & Rubber Industries can be set off against the share income of her minor children from M/s. Ignatius Mill Stores for the assessment year 1976-77. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) initially rejected this set-off, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) accepted it, leading to the present reference. 2. Interpretation of "Total Income" Under the Income-tax Act: Section 2(45) of the Income-tax Act defines "total income" as the total amount of income referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Section 5 includes all income received or deemed to be received in India, accruing or arising in India, or accruing or arising outside India during the relevant year. The court emphasized that once the minor children's income is included in the total income of the assessee under Section 64(1)(iii), it becomes part of her income. 3. Applicability of Section 64(1)(iii) and Section 70(1) of the Income-tax Act: Section 64(1)(iii) mandates the inclusion of a minor child's income from a partnership in the total income of the parent. Explanation 2 to Section 64(2), which clarifies that "income" includes "loss," though effective from April 1, 1980, was deemed clarificatory and applicable to the period in question. Section 70(1) allows for the set-off of losses from one source against income from another source under the same head, while Section 71(1) permits set-off against income under any other head within the same year. 4. Clarificatory Nature of Explanation 2 to Section 64(2): The court held that Explanation 2 to Section 64(2), which states that "income" includes "loss," is clarificatory and reflects the law as it stood before its enactment. This clarification supports the view that the income of the minor children, once included in the assessee's total income, can be set off against her losses. 5. Relevant Judicial Precedents and Their Impact on the Case: The court reviewed several precedents: - Dayalbhai Madhavji Vadera v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 551 (Gujarat High Court): This case held that losses of a minor child could not be set off against the income of the parent. The court disagreed with this view, noting that the scope of "income" includes "loss." - H.H. Marthanda Varma Elayarajah of Travancore v. CIT (Kerala High Court): This case followed Dayalbhai Madhavji Vadera, but the court noted that it failed to consider the clarificatory nature of Explanation 2. - CIT v. B.M. Edward, India Sea Foods (Kerala High Court): This Full Bench decision overruled the earlier view, acknowledging that losses could be set off against the income of the other spouse. - Kapadia v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 511 (Karnataka High Court): This case held that "income" includes "loss," supporting the assessee's position. - CIT v. A.L. Srinivasan [1977] 108 ITR 667 (Madras High Court): This case involved a similar issue but was distinguished by the court as it did not properly address whether the wife's income was part of the husband's income. Conclusion: The court concluded that the income of the minor children, once included in the mother's total income under Section 64(1)(iii), becomes her income. Therefore, the loss incurred by the mother from another source can be set off against this income under Sections 70(1) and 71(1). The court answered the question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, allowing the set-off of the loss against the share income of the minor children. A copy of the judgment will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
|
