When my three minor children's income is clubbed with mine under s.64(1A), can I claim the Chapter VI-A deduction separately for each child's income as well as for my own?
No. The Chapter VI-A deduction is available to the assessee, and once s.64(1A) operates the only assessee is the parent, so there is no separate computation of total income for each minor. The Tribunal held that the deduction in issue (then s.80L) was admissible once, to the parent, and not again for each minor whose income was clubbed.
Decided by the ITAT (Krishan Swarup, Accountant Member) on 2002-01-02, reported as [2002] 81 ITD 379 (Delhi); assessment year 1993-94. It bears on section 64(1A), section 64, section 10(32), section 80L, section 80B(5), section 2(45), section 80A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
The specific deduction litigated here — s.80L — has since been omitted, so the outcome on that section is spent. What survives is the reasoning, and it is the reasoning practitioners need: s.64(1A) clubs the minor's income, not the minor, and the minor is not an assessee for whom a total income is computed, so any Chapter VI-A deduction that is expressed to be allowed 'in computing the total income of the assessee' cannot be multiplied by the number of children. That logic bears directly on how a minor's bank or deposit interest is dealt with in the parent's return today. The relief that IS given per child is s.10(32), which is an exemption of Rs 1,500 per minor and sits outside Chapter VI-A altogether — do not confuse the two.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee, an individual with income from salary, house property and other sources, had three minor children, each with income from interest and dividends. For assessment year 1993-94 — the first year of s.64(1A) — he included the minors' income in his return after deducting Rs 7,000 in each case under s.80L, in addition to the s.80L deduction claimed against his own income. The Assessing Officer allowed the deduction only against the assessee's own income and disallowed the three separate claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed that the deduction admissible under s.80L be allowed separately in the case of each minor whose income was clubbed, reasoning that what s.64 clubs is the income of the minor child and not his 'gross total income', and that s.80A allows Chapter VI-A deductions from gross total income in computing total income. The Department appealed.
The Department's appeal was allowed (para 9). The deduction under s.80L is legally admissible only to the assessee — here the parent, to whom it had already been allowed against his own income — and not to each of the minors whose income is clubbed under s.64(1A); the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was set aside and the Assessing Officer's order restored (para 8.2).
The Tribunal began by characterising s.64(1A) as a machinery provision relating to the computation of income, following the Patna High Court's description of it in Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. Union of India [1994] 209 ITR 746, and applied the settled distinction between charging and machinery provisions: machinery sections are not subject to rigorous construction and are to be construed so that a charge to tax is not defeated (para 7). It then read s.80L itself, which allowed the deduction 'in computing the total income of the assessee', and asked who the assessee is when s.64(1A) is applied. The answer, it held, could only be the parent, because there is no computation of 'total income' at all in the case of the minor whose income is being clubbed (para 8). It supported that by the head note of the Madras High Court's decision in P.N. Ramaswamy, to the effect that relief under s.80L is available to the husband after the wife's income has been clubbed with his, the wife not being the assessee in respect of that income (para 8). Section 10(32), inserted by the same Finance Act 1992, was noted as the provision that does give relief per minor child, to the extent of Rs 1,500 (para 6).
we are of the considered opinion that deduction under Section 80L is legally admissible only to the assessee, which, in the present case, has already been allowed to him against his own income, and not to each of the minors whose income is clubbed in the hands of the assessee by virtue of provisions of Section 64(1A) of the Act
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. The Chapter VI-A deduction is available to the assessee, and once s.64(1A) operates the only assessee is the parent, so there is no separate computation of total income for each minor. The Tribunal held that the deduction in issue (then s.80L) was admissible once, to the parent, and not again for each minor whose income was clubbed. This was decided by the ITAT (Krishan Swarup, Accountant Member) and bears on section 64(1A), section 64, section 10(32), section 80L, section 80B(5), section 2(45), section 80A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2002] 81 ITD 379 (Delhi); assessment year 1993-94. The specific deduction litigated here — s.80L — has since been omitted, so the outcome on that section is spent. What survives is the reasoning, and it is the reasoning practitioners need: s.64(1A) clubs the minor's income, not the minor, and the minor is not an assessee for whom a total income is computed, so any Chapter VI-A deduction that is expressed to be allowed 'in computing the total income of the assessee' cannot be multiplied by the number of children. That logic bears directly on how a minor's bank or deposit interest is dealt with in the parent's return today. The relief that IS given per child is s.10(32), which is an exemption of Rs 1,500 per minor and sits outside Chapter VI-A altogether — do not confuse the two. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Compute each minor's income under the relevant head, apply the s.10(32) exemption of Rs 1,500 per child (restricted to the includible income where that is less), club the balance, and then take Chapter VI-A deductions once, at the level of the parent as assessee.
The assessee, an individual with income from salary, house property and other sources, had three minor children, each with income from interest and dividends. For assessment year 1993-94 — the first year of s.64(1A) — he included the minors' income in his return after deducting Rs 7,000 in each case under s.80L, in addition to the s.80L deduction claimed against his own income. The Assessing Officer allowed the deduction only against the assessee's own income and disallowed the three separate claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed that the deduction admissible under s.80L be allowed separately in the case of each minor whose income was clubbed, reasoning that what s.64 clubs is the income of the minor child and not his 'gross total income', and that s.80A allows Chapter VI-A deductions from gross total income in computing total income. The Department appealed. The matter was decided on 2002-01-02 by the ITAT (Krishan Swarup, Accountant Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The Department's appeal was allowed (para 9). The deduction under s.80L is legally admissible only to the assessee — here the parent, to whom it had already been allowed against his own income — and not to each of the minors whose income is clubbed under s.64(1A); the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was set aside and the Assessing Officer's order restored (para 8.2).
The Tribunal began by characterising s.64(1A) as a machinery provision relating to the computation of income, following the Patna High Court's description of it in Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. Union of India [1994] 209 ITR 746, and applied the settled distinction between charging and machinery provisions: machinery sections are not subject to rigorous construction and are to be construed so that a charge to tax is not defeated (para 7). It then read s.80L itself, which allowed the deduction 'in computing the total income of the assessee', and asked who the assessee is when s.64(1A) is applied. The answer, it held, could only be the parent, because there is no computation of 'total income' at all in the case of the minor whose income is being clubbed (para 8). It supported that by the head note of the Madras High Court's decision in P.N. Ramaswamy, to the effect that relief under s.80L is available to the husband after the wife's income has been clubbed with his, the wife not being the assessee in respect of that income (para 8). Section 10(32), inserted by the same Finance Act 1992, was noted as the provision that does give relief per minor child, to the extent of Rs 1,500 (para 6). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "we are of the considered opinion that deduction under Section 80L is legally admissible only to the assessee, which, in the present case, has already been allowed to him against his own income, and not to each of the minors whose income is clubbed in the hands of the assessee by virtue of provisions of Section 64(1A) of the Act" The decision followed or applied Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. Union of India [1994] 209 ITR 746 (Patna) — relied on for the characterisation of s.64(1A) as a machinery provision; CIT v. P.N. Ramaswamy (Mad) — head note relied on.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2002-01-02 and is reported as [2002] 81 ITD 379 (Delhi); assessment year 1993-94. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 64(1A), section 64, section 10(32), section 80L, section 80B(5), section 2(45), section 80A, 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 Department's appeal was allowed (para 9). The deduction under s.80L is legally admissible only to the assessee — here the parent, to whom it had already been allowed against his own income — and not to each of the minors whose income is clubbed under s.64(1A); the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was set aside and the Assessing Officer's order restored (para 8.2). It arises in Deductions & Disallowances, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 64(1A), section 64, section 10(32), section 80L, section 80B(5), section 2(45), section 80A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Krishan Swarup, Accountant Member. 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. Do not file on the footing that each clubbed minor gets his own Chapter VI-A limit; the Tribunal restored the Assessing Officer's disallowance on exactly that point. Where the dispute is over what 'income' in s.64(1A) means, note that the Tribunal treated the section as a machinery provision to be construed so that the charge is not defeated, following the Patna High Court in Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam. Check the current wording of the deduction you are claiming before applying this reasoning — the section litigated here no longer exists, and the argument has to be rebuilt on the words of whichever deduction is in issue.
Superseded by amendment. Section 80L, the deduction actually decided, has since been omitted from the Act, so the operative outcome no longer arises. The reasoning — that where s.64(1A) applies the parent is the only assessee and there is no computation of total income for the minor — was not shown to have been doubted, but no search for later treatment was carried out and its application to the Chapter VI-A deductions now in force has not been tested here. 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.
Section 80L, the deduction actually in issue, has since been omitted, so the outcome on that section is of historical interest only and the entry is labelled accordingly; the reasoning about who the assessee is when s.64(1A) operates is what a later reader will want. The order was passed by a single Accountant Member. Within the order, the passage set out as the ratio of the Madras High Court in P.N. Ramaswamy is expressly described by the Tribunal as the head note of that decision, so it is not the High Court's own words and has not been treated as such here; the underlying Madras decision was not read. Paragraphs 1 to 9 (including 8.2) were transcribed. The s.10(32) figure of Rs 1,500 per minor child stated in 'what to do' comes from the judgments in this line, not from a live reading of the enacted clause; it could not be confirmed on a departmental source on the verification pass (the s.10 page truncates inside clause (23C)). Confirm the figure and the restriction before advising. 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 Department's appeal was allowed (para 9). The deduction under s.80L is legally admissible only to the assessee — here the parent, to whom it had already been allowed against his own income — and not to each of the minors whose income is clubbed under s.64(1A); the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was set aside and the Assessing Officer's order restored (para 8.2).
TaxSphere, “ITO v Kuldeep Jain”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/ito-v-kuldeep-jain-64-1a-chapter-via-per-minor/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
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 Assessing Officer is clubbing my minor daughter's entire interest income with mine under s.64(1A), although I never transferred a rupee to her. Is that provision even valid?
Our tea company exports. Should the section 80HHC deduction be worked out on the whole composite income before Rule 8 splits it sixty-forty, or only on the forty per cent that is taxable?
My ward is a minor whose parents are both dead. There is no parent to club her income with, so is her income simply not taxable at all until she turns eighteen?
My husband died some years ago. The Assessing Officer says my minor sons' income must be clubbed with mine. Which limb of the Explanation to s.64(1A) applies to a widow, and does it matter that the boys have their own money to live on?
