I gifted money to my minor sons and they were then admitted to the benefits of a partnership using that money. Will their share of the firm's profits be clubbed with my income?
No, not on these facts. The Supreme Court held that before a minor child's income can be clubbed with the parent's, it must be proved to have arisen directly or indirectly from the transfer of assets made by the parent. Here the minors' income arose from their admission to the benefits of the partnership; the gifts were only what enabled the contribution. The connection between the gifts and the income was remote, and there was no nexus between the transfer and the income. The clubbing provision creates an artificial income and must receive strict construction. The Department's appeal was dismissed.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; K.S. Hegde, J.C. Shah and A.N. Grover JJ; judgment delivered by Hegde J) on 1970-04-20, reported as 1970 AIR 1518; 1971 SCR (1) 308. It bears on section 64 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Gifts, Shares & Angel Tax and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the proximate-cause authority on clubbing. It supplies the test that decides most clubbing disputes: not whether the transferred asset can be traced into the arrangement that produced the income, but whether the income arose as a result of the transfer rather than in some manner connected with it. It also fixes the interpretive posture, that a provision creating an artificial income is strictly construed, following Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel. Where a gift is followed by a separate commercial act by the transferee, such as admission to the benefits of a firm, this is the case that breaks the chain the department wants to draw.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee was a partner in the firm M/s. Ajitmal Kanhaiyalal. He continued as a partner until 1 July 1954, the last day of the firm's accounting year relevant to assessment year 1955-56, and retired on that date. He then gifted Rs. 75,000 to each of his four sons, three of whom were minors. The firm was reconstituted with effect from 2 July 1954 under a partnership deed dated 5 July 1954. The major son became a partner with a two annas share, and the three minor sons were admitted to the benefits of the partnership, each with a two annas share. For assessment year 1956-57 the Income-tax Officer held that the income arising to the minors from their admission to the benefits of the partnership fell within section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and included it in the assessee's total income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner substantially upheld the assessment but reduced the minors' share, and the Tribunal upheld him. The Calcutta High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee. The Department appealed by certificate. A second referred question, on the vires of section 16(3), was not pressed.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that before any income of a minor child can be brought within the clubbing provision it must be established that the income arose directly or indirectly from assets transferred directly or indirectly by the father. It accepted the Tribunal's finding, not open to question, that the capital the minors put into the firm came from their father's gifts. But the income in question arose as a result of their admission to the benefits of the partnership. They were admitted because of the contribution they made, yet there was no nexus between the transfer of the assets and the income, and the connection between the gifts and the income was a remote one. It could not be said that the income arose directly or indirectly from the transfer of the assets. The provision creates an artificial income and must receive strict construction, as held in Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel.
The Court set out the provision, which requires the inclusion of so much of the income of a wife or minor child as arises directly or indirectly from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the minor child otherwise than for adequate consideration. It then took the two undisputed facts, that the father had transferred Rs. 75,000 to each minor son and that the sums the minors contributed to the firm came from those transfers, and asked the only question the provision poses: whether the income in dispute arose directly or indirectly from the assets transferred. The Court answered that the income arose from admission to the benefits of the partnership. The gift was the reason the minors were in a position to be admitted, but that made the link a remote one rather than a source. The interpretive step came next: because the provision creates an artificial income, it must be construed strictly, and on a strict construction there was no nexus between the transfer and the income. The Court stated the rule for future cases in terms of proximity: the connection between the transfer of assets and the income must be proximate, and the income must arise as a result of the transfer and not in some manner connected with it.
The connection between the transfer of assets and the income must be proximate. The income in question must arise as a result of the transfer and not in some manner connected with it.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo, not on these facts. The Supreme Court held that before a minor child's income can be clubbed with the parent's, it must be proved to have arisen directly or indirectly from the transfer of assets made by the parent. Here the minors' income arose from their admission to the benefits of the partnership; the gifts were only what enabled the contribution. The connection between the gifts and the income was remote, and there was no nexus between the transfer and the income. The clubbing provision creates an artificial income and must receive strict construction. The Department's appeal was dismissed. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; K.S. Hegde, J.C. Shah and A.N. Grover JJ; judgment delivered by Hegde J) and bears on section 64 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as 1970 AIR 1518; 1971 SCR (1) 308. This is the proximate-cause authority on clubbing. It supplies the test that decides most clubbing disputes: not whether the transferred asset can be traced into the arrangement that produced the income, but whether the income arose as a result of the transfer rather than in some manner connected with it. It also fixes the interpretive posture, that a provision creating an artificial income is strictly construed, following Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel. Where a gift is followed by a separate commercial act by the transferee, such as admission to the benefits of a firm, this is the case that breaks the chain the department wants to draw. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Identify the immediate source of the income and show it is the arrangement, not the gift, that produced it.
The assessee was a partner in the firm M/s. Ajitmal Kanhaiyalal. He continued as a partner until 1 July 1954, the last day of the firm's accounting year relevant to assessment year 1955-56, and retired on that date. He then gifted Rs. 75,000 to each of his four sons, three of whom were minors. The firm was reconstituted with effect from 2 July 1954 under a partnership deed dated 5 July 1954. The major son became a partner with a two annas share, and the three minor sons were admitted to the benefits of the partnership, each with a two annas share. For assessment year 1956-57 the Income-tax Officer held that the income arising to the minors from their admission to the benefits of the partnership fell within section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and included it in the assessee's total income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner substantially upheld the assessment but reduced the minors' share, and the Tribunal upheld him. The Calcutta High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee. The Department appealed by certificate. A second referred question, on the vires of section 16(3), was not pressed. The matter was decided on 1970-04-20 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India; K.S. Hegde, J.C. Shah and A.N. Grover JJ; judgment delivered by Hegde J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that before any income of a minor child can be brought within the clubbing provision it must be established that the income arose directly or indirectly from assets transferred directly or indirectly by the father. It accepted the Tribunal's finding, not open to question, that the capital the minors put into the firm came from their father's gifts. But the income in question arose as a result of their admission to the benefits of the partnership. They were admitted because of the contribution they made, yet there was no nexus between the transfer of the assets and the income, and the connection between the gifts and the income was a remote one. It could not be said that the income arose directly or indirectly from the transfer of the assets. The provision creates an artificial income and must receive strict construction, as held in Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel.
The Court set out the provision, which requires the inclusion of so much of the income of a wife or minor child as arises directly or indirectly from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the minor child otherwise than for adequate consideration. It then took the two undisputed facts, that the father had transferred Rs. 75,000 to each minor son and that the sums the minors contributed to the firm came from those transfers, and asked the only question the provision poses: whether the income in dispute arose directly or indirectly from the assets transferred. The Court answered that the income arose from admission to the benefits of the partnership. The gift was the reason the minors were in a position to be admitted, but that made the link a remote one rather than a source. The interpretive step came next: because the provision creates an artificial income, it must be construed strictly, and on a strict construction there was no nexus between the transfer and the income. The Court stated the rule for future cases in terms of proximity: the connection between the transfer of assets and the income must be proximate, and the income must arise as a result of the transfer and not in some manner connected with it. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The connection between the transfer of assets and the income must be proximate. The income in question must arise as a result of the transfer and not in some manner connected with it."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1970-04-20 and is reported as 1970 AIR 1518; 1971 SCR (1) 308. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 64, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that before any income of a minor child can be brought within the clubbing provision it must be established that the income arose directly or indirectly from assets transferred directly or indirectly by the father. It accepted the Tribunal's finding, not open to question, that the capital the minors put into the firm came from their father's gifts. But the income in question arose as a result of their admission to the benefits of the partnership. They were admitted because of the contribution they made, yet there was no nexus between the transfer of the assets and the income, and the connection between the gifts and the income was a remote one. It could not be said that the income arose directly or indirectly from the transfer of the assets. The provision creates an artificial income and must receive strict construction, as held in Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel. It arises in Gifts, Shares & Angel Tax and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 64 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India; K.S. Hegde, J.C. Shah and A.N. Grover JJ; judgment delivered by Hegde J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Keep the gift and the later admission or investment as genuinely separate steps, documented and separated in time and in the deed. Argue strict construction of the clubbing provision expressly; it creates an artificial income and is not to be stretched. Expect the tracing of funds to be conceded; the argument is about proximity, not about where the money came from.
Validity check could not be completed. Not checked against later law. Only the harvested judgment was available. It construes section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the 1922 Act, and the clubbing provisions of the 1961 Act have been amended since, including in relation to the income of minor children; I could not verify the present position from anything in front of me. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Decided under section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; the record is indexed under section 64 of the 1961 Act, a correspondence the judgment does not make. Sections 64(1)(iii), 64(1)(iv) and 60 listed in the batch line are not discussed. The report ends with the statement of the rule and the disposal line "Appeal dismissed" without a separate operative paragraph, and the challenge to the vires of section 16(3) was not pressed and so was not decided. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that before any income of a minor child can be brought within the clubbing provision it must be established that the income arose directly or indirectly from assets transferred directly or indirectly by the father. It accepted the Tribunal's finding, not open to question, that the capital the minors put into the firm came from their father's gifts. But the income in question arose as a result of their admission to the benefits of the partnership. They were admitted because of the contribution they made, yet there was no nexus between the transfer of the assets and the income, and the connection between the gifts and the income was a remote one. It could not be said that the income arose directly or indirectly from the transfer of the assets. The provision creates an artificial income and must receive strict construction, as held in Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The AO clubbed my wife's rental income with mine and denied my HRA. Is that right?
My wife's and minor children's share income from a firm is clubbed into my total income. Can I set my own carried forward business loss against it, when I am not a partner in that firm?
I gifted money to my children, who put it into a firm and were admitted to the benefits of partnership. Is their share income clubbed with mine as arising from the gift?
I transferred shares to my fiancee a week before we married. Will the dividends on those shares be clubbed with my income?