| Case ID |
370eb030-0e93-4fe3-9e31-e5499e6103b7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies when the minor child is of an individual who is the assessee, and not when the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the share income of the minor son of the karta from the partnership firm could not be included in the income of the assessee-HUF under section 64. Thus, the reference was answered in favor of the assessee, confirming the Tribunal's interpretation and providing clarity on the application of the law regarding the income of minors in relation to HUF assessments. |
| Summary |
This case discusses the application of section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, focusing on the assessment of income concerning minor children of individuals versus Hindu Undivided Families. The Rajasthan High Court affirmed the Tribunal's ruling that share income from a partnership firm cannot be included in the income of the HUF when it pertains to the minor child of the karta. This precedent highlights the legal distinctions between individual and HUF assessments in tax law. Key terms include Income-tax Act, HUF, minor income, and tax assessments, which are essential for understanding the implications of this ruling in family and tax law contexts. |
| Court |
Rajasthan High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
J.S. Verma, C.J.,
I.S. Israni, J.
|
| Lawyers |
V.K. Singhal,
Prem Asopa
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Bal Mukund
|
| Citations |
1990 SLD 1764,
(1990) 182 ITR 42
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Abhay Kumar [1989] 179 ITR 363 (Raj.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
64(1)(iii)
|