Case Details

Citation(s)
1965 SLG 426 1965 SLD 426 (1965) 56 ITR 426
Allahabad High Court
I.T. REFERENCE No. 233 OF 1960, APRIL 13, 1964
M.C. DESAI, C.J. AND R.S. PATHAK, J
S.K. Agarwal, for the Applicant. R.L. Gulati, for the
Respondent

Smt. Kesho Bai

v.

Commissioner of INCOME TAX

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 16(3)(a)(ii)

Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Transfer of assets - For benefit of spouse, etc - Assessment years 1950-51 to 1952-53 - Whether in view of Supreme Court's decision in Damayanti Sahni v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 615, word 'individual' occurring in section 16(3)(a)(ii) refers to male only and not to female - Held, yes FACTS The assessee, was a partner in two firms, her son 'V' who was a minor at the time, was admitted to the benefits of partnership in the two firms. For the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, the ITO included the share of the profits falling to the minor in the assessment of the assessee and, justified the inclusion by reference to the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(ii ) of the 1922 Act. An appeal by the assessee contesting the inclusion of the share of the profits was dismissed by the AAC and thereafter a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was also unsuccessful. On reference: HELD There was controversy of judicial opinion on the question whether the word "individual" in section 16(3)(a)( ii) could mean both a male and a female, but the difference has since been resolved by the decision of the Supreme Court in Damayanti Sahni v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 615 where it has been held that the word "individual" can mean only a male and does not refer to a female. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the word "individual" occurring in section 16(3)(a )(ii) of the 1922 Act refers to a male only and not to a female also. Note : The case was decided in favour of the assessee. CASES REFERRED TO Damayanti Sahni v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 615 (SC). JUDGMENT Pathak, J.-The assessee, Smt. Kesho Bai, was a partner in two firms, M/s. Ramprasad Prem Kumar and M/s. Gopal & Co. Her son, Vinod Kumar, who was a minor at the time, was admitted to the benefits of pertnership in the two firms. For the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492