| Case ID |
1a13fca2-9e71-4f70-8c08-78839ed2c274 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the income of the wife and minor children of the assessee cannot be included in the individual assessment of the assessee under section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the assessee is a partner of the firm in his representative capacity as the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The interpretation of the law emphasized that the word 'individual' in section 64 is distinct from 'person' and applies only when the individual is a partner in his personal capacity. The case highlighted the strict interpretation of tax laws and aimed to clarify the scope of income attribution in the context of family partnerships. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the inclusion of income derived by the wife and minor children of an individual partner representing a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Gauhati High Court concluded that income arising from a partnership where the partner acts in a representative capacity as the karta of an HUF is not subject to individual assessment under section 64(1). This ruling underscores the importance of precise language in tax legislation and delineates the boundaries of income attribution in familial partnership contexts. The decision provides clarity on the treatment of income for tax purposes, ensuring that income from partnerships is assessed correctly based on the partner's capacity—either as an individual or as a representative of the HUF. This ruling is significant for tax professionals and family businesses, as it influences income tax assessments and compliance requirements. The case also refers to various precedents, reinforcing the established legal interpretations concerning joint family income and individual assessments in tax law. |
| Court |
Gauhati High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
S.N. Phukan,
J.M. Srivastava
|
| Lawyers |
D.K. Talukdar,
B.J. Talukdar
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Jhabarmal Agarwalla
|
| Citations |
1992 SLD 1533 = (1992) 195 ITR 351
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Basanta Kumar Agarwalla [1983] 140 ITR 418 (Gauhati),
CIT v. Jhabarmal Agarwalla [1990] 184 ITR 431 (Gauhati),
Sahu Govind Prasad v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 851/ 15 Taxman 479 (All.) (FB),
CIT v. Sanka Sankaraiah [1978] 113 ITR 313 (AP),
Dinubhai Ishvarlal Patel v. K.D. Dixit, ITO [1979] 118 ITR 122/ 1 Taxman 510 (Guj.),
CIT v. Anand Sarup [1980] 121 ITR 873(Punj. & Har.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
64
|