SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 1159

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C.SEN
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana – Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash – Respondent


Advocates:
S.N.TERDAL, S.RAJAPPA, V.GAURI SHANKAR

ORDER

B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J.

1. A conflict of opinion among the High Courts on the meaning and interpretation of Clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 64 (as they stood prior to 1st April, 1976) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 falls for resolution in this batch of appeals. Prior to April 1, 1976 the said clauses along with the explanation read thus :

"(1). In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly-

(i) to the spouse of the such individual from the membership of the spouse in a firm carrying on a business in which such individual is a partner;

(ii) to a minor child of such individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm in which such individual is a partner;

Explanation:-For the purpose of clause (i) the individual, in computing whose total income the income referred to in that clause is to be included, shall be the husband or wife whose total income (excluding the income referred to in that clause) is greater; and, for the purpose of Clause (ii), where both the parents are members of the firm in which the minor child is a partner, the income of the minor child from



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top