I pay my wife a salary in my own professional practice. She has no degree but she does the work. Can the Assessing Officer club that salary with my income under s.64(1)(ii)?
On the Bombay High Court's view, yes. The proviso to s.64(1)(ii) contains two conditions and both must be satisfied: the spouse must possess technical or professional qualifications, and the income must be solely attributable to the application of his or her technical or professional knowledge and experience. Knowledge and experience in the second condition cannot be read back into the first, so a spouse who does the work competently but holds no qualification fails at the threshold.
Decided by the High Court (Dr B.P. Saraf J (author, as printed in the report header)) on 1993-03-13, reported as [1994] 207 ITR 252 (Bom); reference under s.256(1); assessment year 1978-79. It bears on section 64(1)(ii), section 64, section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Salary & Perquisites, Evidence & Burden of Proof and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the Revenue side of a line that runs the other way in several High Courts, and the library already carries the leading taxpayer-side decision. The Bombay High Court here expressly declined to follow the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Batta Kalyani and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhubala Shrenik Kumar, and drew support from the Karnataka High Court in D. Rajagopal — but Madras and Gauhati have since gone the other way on the facts, and the Madras High Court in CIT v. R. Jayalakshmi [1999] 240 ITR 773 said in terms that the want of a diploma or degree does not diminish the value of the spouse's services. It also settles two points that are often conceded too quickly: 'concern' in s.64(1)(ii) is not confined to a business and covers a professional practice, and a 100 per cent proprietary interest is a 'substantial interest' — the twenty per cent in the Explanation is a floor, not a ceiling. Which line binds you depends on your High Court, and the answer must be given jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee was a practising physician and cardiologist. His wife, Smt Jayashree J. Mokashi, had passed the first year of an Arts course at Bombay University and was employed by him as a receptionist-cum-accountant. For the previous year relevant to assessment year 1978-79 he paid her Rs 8,100 by way of salary. The Income-tax Officer included that amount in the assessee's income under s.64(1)(ii); the Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed. Because Benches of the Tribunal had taken conflicting views, the matter was heard by a Special Bench, before which the assessee argued that 'concern' in s.64(1)(ii) does not include a profession, that a 100 per cent proprietary interest is not a 'substantial interest' within Explanation 2(ii), that possession of technical or professional qualifications does not require a degree from a competent authority or university but only the necessary knowledge and experience to perform the duties, and that the word 'and' appearing twice in the proviso should be read as 'or'. The Tribunal found no material to show that Mrs Mokashi had any technical or professional qualification or that the salary was attributable to any technical or professional knowledge and experience of hers, and confirmed the inclusion. The assessee obtained a reference.
The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs (para 31). To claim the benefit of the proviso to s.64(1)(ii) both the conditions specified in it must be satisfied; if the spouse does not possess technical or professional qualifications the proviso does not apply and the second requirement need not be considered at all (para 19). Even where the spouse is qualified, only so much of the income as is solely attributable to the application of his or her technical or professional knowledge and experience escapes s.64(1)(ii), not the whole of the spouse's income (para 19).
The Court held the proviso to be clear and unambiguous and rejected the assessee's submissions as based on a totally erroneous interpretation of it (para 18). It reasoned from the deliberate use of two different expressions in the same proviso — 'technical or professional qualifications' in the first condition and 'technical or professional knowledge and experience' in the second — holding that Parliament had not used them inadvertently and that the second could not be used to dilute the first (para 19). It drew support from the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. D. Rajagopal [1985] 154 ITR 375, which had held both conditions to be cumulative (para 28). It distinguished Kamlabai Gujri (Smt.) v. CIT as presupposing that the first condition was fulfilled, and said it found it difficult to agree with CIT v. Madhubala Shrenik Kumar [1990] 181 ITR 180 if that decision held that 'technical or professional qualifications' cannot mean obtaining a degree or diploma from a recognised body (para 29). As to Batta Kalyani v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 59, where the Andhra Pradesh High Court had held it enough that the recipient possesses the attributes of technical or professional qualification in the sense of expertise, the Court said that interpretation was not correct, went counter to the express language of the proviso, and expressed its inability to agree with it (para 29).
In order to claim the benefit of the proviso to avoid clubbing of income under section 64(1)(ii) of the Act, both the conditions specified in the proviso must be satisfied.
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 WhatsAppOn the Bombay High Court's view, yes. The proviso to s.64(1)(ii) contains two conditions and both must be satisfied: the spouse must possess technical or professional qualifications, and the income must be solely attributable to the application of his or her technical or professional knowledge and experience. Knowledge and experience in the second condition cannot be read back into the first, so a spouse who does the work competently but holds no qualification fails at the threshold. This was decided by the High Court (Dr B.P. Saraf J (author, as printed in the report header)) and bears on section 64(1)(ii), section 64, section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [1994] 207 ITR 252 (Bom); reference under s.256(1); assessment year 1978-79. This is the Revenue side of a line that runs the other way in several High Courts, and the library already carries the leading taxpayer-side decision. The Bombay High Court here expressly declined to follow the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Batta Kalyani and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhubala Shrenik Kumar, and drew support from the Karnataka High Court in D. Rajagopal — but Madras and Gauhati have since gone the other way on the facts, and the Madras High Court in CIT v. R. Jayalakshmi [1999] 240 ITR 773 said in terms that the want of a diploma or degree does not diminish the value of the spouse's services. It also settles two points that are often conceded too quickly: 'concern' in s.64(1)(ii) is not confined to a business and covers a professional practice, and a 100 per cent proprietary interest is a 'substantial interest' — the twenty per cent in the Explanation is a floor, not a ceiling. Which line binds you depends on your High Court, and the answer must be given jurisdiction by jurisdiction. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Check first which High Court governs your assessee — the Bombay view and the Andhra Pradesh view are irreconcilable and the answer turns on that.
The assessee was a practising physician and cardiologist. His wife, Smt Jayashree J. Mokashi, had passed the first year of an Arts course at Bombay University and was employed by him as a receptionist-cum-accountant. For the previous year relevant to assessment year 1978-79 he paid her Rs 8,100 by way of salary. The Income-tax Officer included that amount in the assessee's income under s.64(1)(ii); the Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed. Because Benches of the Tribunal had taken conflicting views, the matter was heard by a Special Bench, before which the assessee argued that 'concern' in s.64(1)(ii) does not include a profession, that a 100 per cent proprietary interest is not a 'substantial interest' within Explanation 2(ii), that possession of technical or professional qualifications does not require a degree from a competent authority or university but only the necessary knowledge and experience to perform the duties, and that the word 'and' appearing twice in the proviso should be read as 'or'. The Tribunal found no material to show that Mrs Mokashi had any technical or professional qualification or that the salary was attributable to any technical or professional knowledge and experience of hers, and confirmed the inclusion. The assessee obtained a reference. The matter was decided on 1993-03-13 by the High Court (Dr B.P. Saraf J (author, as printed in the report header)). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs (para 31). To claim the benefit of the proviso to s.64(1)(ii) both the conditions specified in it must be satisfied; if the spouse does not possess technical or professional qualifications the proviso does not apply and the second requirement need not be considered at all (para 19). Even where the spouse is qualified, only so much of the income as is solely attributable to the application of his or her technical or professional knowledge and experience escapes s.64(1)(ii), not the whole of the spouse's income (para 19).
The Court held the proviso to be clear and unambiguous and rejected the assessee's submissions as based on a totally erroneous interpretation of it (para 18). It reasoned from the deliberate use of two different expressions in the same proviso — 'technical or professional qualifications' in the first condition and 'technical or professional knowledge and experience' in the second — holding that Parliament had not used them inadvertently and that the second could not be used to dilute the first (para 19). It drew support from the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. D. Rajagopal [1985] 154 ITR 375, which had held both conditions to be cumulative (para 28). It distinguished Kamlabai Gujri (Smt.) v. CIT as presupposing that the first condition was fulfilled, and said it found it difficult to agree with CIT v. Madhubala Shrenik Kumar [1990] 181 ITR 180 if that decision held that 'technical or professional qualifications' cannot mean obtaining a degree or diploma from a recognised body (para 29). As to Batta Kalyani v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 59, where the Andhra Pradesh High Court had held it enough that the recipient possesses the attributes of technical or professional qualification in the sense of expertise, the Court said that interpretation was not correct, went counter to the express language of the proviso, and expressed its inability to agree with it (para 29). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In order to claim the benefit of the proviso to avoid clubbing of income under section 64(1)(ii) of the Act, both the conditions specified in the proviso must be satisfied." The decision followed or applied CIT v. D. Rajagopal [1985] 154 ITR 375 (Kar) — followed; Batta Kalyani v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 59 (AP) — expressly dissented from; CIT v. Madhubala Shrenik Kumar [1990] 181 ITR 180 (MP) — disagreed with; Kamlabai Gujri (Smt.) v. CIT (MP) — distinguished.
It was decided by the High Court on 1993-03-13 and is reported as [1994] 207 ITR 252 (Bom); reference under s.256(1); assessment year 1978-79. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 64(1)(ii), section 64, section 256(1), 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 department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs (para 31). To claim the benefit of the proviso to s.64(1)(ii) both the conditions specified in it must be satisfied; if the spouse does not possess technical or professional qualifications the proviso does not apply and the second requirement need not be considered at all (para 19). Even where the spouse is qualified, only so much of the income as is solely attributable to the application of his or her technical or professional knowledge and experience escapes s.64(1)(ii), not the whole of the spouse's income (para 19). It arises in Salary & Perquisites, Evidence & Burden of Proof and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 64(1)(ii), section 64, section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Dr B.P. Saraf J (author, as printed in the report header). 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. In a Bombay-line jurisdiction, produce the spouse's qualification itself — degree, diploma, certification or registration — and not merely evidence of the work done; on this reasoning the work is relevant only after the qualification is established. Do not argue that 'concern' excludes a profession or that a sole proprietorship falls outside 'substantial interest'; both arguments were rejected. Do not argue that the two 'and's in the proviso should be read as 'or'; that was rejected as a totally erroneous interpretation. Even where the spouse is qualified, expect the Assessing Officer to test how much of the remuneration is solely attributable to that expertise — the proviso protects only that part of the income, not the whole salary.
High Courts differ on this point. The Bombay High Court here expressly declined to follow the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Batta Kalyani v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 59 ('the interpretation of the proviso by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is not correct… we express our inability to agree with the same', para 29) and disagreed with the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Madhubala Shrenik Kumar [1990] 181 ITR 180, while following the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. D. Rajagopal [1985] 154 ITR 375. The taxpayer side of the line is wider than the judgment records: the Madras High Court in CIT v. R. Jayalakshmi [1999] 240 ITR 773 (13 July 1998) answered the reference in favour of the assessee, holding that the absence of a diploma or degree 'does not make the value of his services to the business any less', and the Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Smt Pratima Saha (14 May 1999) answered its question in favour of the assessee. The Gujarat High Court in Ashaben Rohitbhai v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 561 also answered in favour of the assessee but on the construction agrees with this decision that both conditions are cumulative, so it is a taxpayer win on the facts rather than a conflicting construction. The Kerala decisions in CIT v. Sorabji Dorabji [1987] 168 ITR 598 and Dr. K. Thomas Varghese v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 21 and the Gujarat decision in CIT v. Dr. K.K. Shah [1982] 135 ITR 146 were not read. No Supreme Court decision resolving the conflict was searched for. 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.
This entry rests on paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 28, 29, 31 and 32, which were transcribed verbatim; the intervening paragraphs 8 to 17 and 20 to 27 were not reached, so no assertion is made about the continuity of the numbering, and the Court's fuller treatment of the meaning of 'qualification' (referred to in para 19 as coming later in the judgment) was not read. The equivalent citation [1994] 207 ITR 252 (Bom) is taken from the indiankanoon header line, not from the judgment text. The proceedings below included a Special Bench of the Tribunal constituted because of conflicting Bench decisions; the seven numbered propositions of that Special Bench appear in the report and items (v), (vi) and (vii) of them are quoted in the fragment read, so care is needed not to attribute those to the High Court. 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 question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs (para 31). To claim the benefit of the proviso to s.64(1)(ii) both the conditions specified in it must be satisfied; if the spouse does not possess technical or professional qualifications the proviso does not apply and the second requirement need not be considered at all (para 19). Even where the spouse is qualified, only so much of the income as is solely attributable to the application of his or her technical or professional knowledge and experience escapes s.64(1)(ii), not the whole of the spouse's income (para 19).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I pay my husband a salary in my business. Can the AO club it because he has no degree?
Can an assessee appeal against an addition he agreed to during the assessment?
I disclosed a large sum in the search statement and retracted two months later. Will the retraction hold?
The AO clubbed my wife's rental income with mine and denied my HRA. Is that right?