| 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
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…
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