Dr.

Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow

2017

Law of Taxation-I
Project
"Clubbing of Income of Spouse and Minor Child for Tax purposes"

MADE UNDER ABLE GUIDANCE OF: SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. Bhanu Pratap, Shikhar Tandon

Assistant Professor, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

DR. RMLNLU, Lucknow. Semester- 7th

Section-B

Enrollment No. 134

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Project in Law of taxation on the topic, “Clubbing of income of spouse and minor
child for tax purposes” has been given shape and success by the effort of a lot of people who
has contributed in its completion.

I express my humble thanks to Mr. Bhanu Pratap (Assistant Professor), my subject

teacher of Law of Taxation, under whose supervision the whole project has been made and
without whose teachings and insights on this topic, this project could not have been fructified.

I also extend my heartiest thanks to my seniors for their insights into the concerned final
draft of the project and helping with me with everything I asked them. The role of the Library
Department is also noteworthy. All the staff members helped me generously in getting the
materials and information I needed to complete this project.
INTRODUCTION:

Generally an assessee is taxed in respect of his own income. But sometimes in some
exceptional circumstances this basic principle is deviated and the assessee may be taxed in
respect of income which legally belongs to somebody else. Earlier the taxpayers made an
attempt to reduce their tax liability by transferring their assets in favour of their family
members or by arranging their sources of income in such a way that tax incidence falls on
others, whereas benefits of income is derived by them . So to counteract such practices of tax
avoidance, necessary provisions have been incorporated in sections 60 to 64 of the Income
Tax Act Hence, a person is liable to pay tax on his own income as well as income belonging
to others on fulfilment of certain conditions. Inclusion of other’s Incomes in the income of
the assessee is called Clubbing of Income and the income which is so included is called
Deemed Income. It is as per the provisions contained in Sections 60 to 64 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961.
Section 64 of the Income Tax Act contains provisions intended to check tax avoidance by
persons through diversion of income to the members of the family. This section especially
provides that where the spouse of an individual derives any income by way of salary,
commission, fees or any other form of remuneration from a concern in which the individual
has a substantial interest, such income will be included in computing the total income of the
individual spouse, certain income of minor child shall be clubbed in the hands of his parents,
income from asset transferred to for inadequate consideration shall be clubbed in the hands of
the transferor, etc.. An exception has however been provided in cases where the spouse in
receipt of such income possesses, technical or professional knowledge and experience.

OBJECT OF THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO INCLUSION OF INCOME FROM

ASSETS TRANSFERRED TO SPOUSE OR MINOR CHILDREN (CLUBBING OF
INCOME):

The object of provisions is to prevent avoidance of tax or reducing the incidence of tax on the
part of the assessee by transfer of his assets to his wife or minor child. The enactment of these
clubbing of income provisions was designed to endeavour to avoid tax liability by means of
settlements and to provide against the disposal by means of settlements and to provide against
the disposal by the tax payer of part of his property in such a way that the income should no
longer be receivable by him while at the same time he retained certain powers over, or
interested in the property of its income. These provisions have limited scope- the scope of the
provisions is limited to only few intimate members of the family who are under the protection
of the assessee and are dependants on him. These provisions intend to check tax avoidance by
persons through diversion of income to the members of their family.

MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION ‘WIFE’ ,‘CHILD’:

For the purpose of the provisions of S. 64, it was held in the case of CIT v. Nawab Mir
Barket Ali Khan1 that child means a legitimate child and wife means a legitimate wife and
income of an illegitimate child is not affected by these provisions.

Section 2(15A) defines Child, which includes a ‘step child’. The object of Explaination 1 to
S. 64(1) is to determine in whose income, whether of the father or of the mother, the income
of the child has to be included. This explanation does not nullify the definition of child in S.
2(15A). In CIT v. Abdul Rahim Khan M. Pathan2, the assessee, a Muslim, partner in a firm
married his brother’s widow and the minor son’s of the assessee’s deceased brother were
admitted to the benefits of the partnership firm. It was held, that the minors became
assessee’s step sons and their income from the firm was includible in the assessee’s income.
Legal relationship under their personal law was immaterial.

SECTION 64 VIS-A VIS SECTION 161:

On death of a Muslim gentleman, all his martuka property was inherited by his mother, two
wives and five minor children. Subsequently, a partnership firm was constituted by these
partners, in which the five minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership. The mother of
the minors contended that the income of the minors should not be clubbed with their income
from the firm under section 64(ii) and such income should be assessed in their hands as
representatives of the minors under Section 161 of ITA which talks about Liability of
representative assessee. It was held in this case, that the assessee’s contention was
untenable. The case comes within the ambit of Section 64(ii) inspite of the fact that the
property initially was matruka property.

In C.R. Nagappa v. CIT, trust created for the benefit of children with direction to utilise only
portion of trust income for children and balance to be accumulated- whether total income of

1
(1974) Tax LR 90 (AP).
2
(2000) 160 CTR 254.
trust assessable in the hands of trustees or only the portion utilised for children. In this Case,
it was held that Section 64(v) was rightly applied and section 161(2) does not makes Section
64(v) incapable and that assessment of the minor beneficiary does not in law operate as a bar
for the application of section 64(v) and as the assessment of beneficiary was illegal, these
were open to correction otherwise.3

ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF TRANSFEREE DOES NOT ACT AS A BAR:

An income includible under s. 64(1) may be assessed in the hands of the transferor even if it
had erroneously been assessed previously in the hands of transferee. In such a case, the latter
assessment will not bar the application of s. 64(1) and the assessment or reassessment earlier
made in the hands of transferee will not stand (C.R. Nagappa v. CIT).

INCOME TO BE CLUBBED EVEN THOUGH THE INDIVIDUAL HAS NO OTHER

INCOME OR TAXABLE INCOME:

In the case of CIT v. G. Gopal Rao4 it was held that the provisions of S. 64(i)(iii) empowers
ITO to include the share income arising to the minor children of an individual on their
admission to the benefits of partnership in a firm in the total income of such individual
assessee, notwithstanding the fact that the total income of such individual is either less than
the minimum liable to tax or that such an individual has no income at all from any source
other than the income included under the above said section of the Act.

The income of the minor, who has been admitted to the benefits of a partnership, is includible
in the income of parent even if the parent has nil income.

Section 64(1)(iii) which provides for including in the total income of an individual, the
income arising to his minor child admitted to the benefits of a partnership, does not contain a
condition precedent that such individual should have income of his own. It is entirely
immaterial that the individual in his whose hands the income is liable to be included does not
have any income at all.

INCOME OF OTHER PERSONS INCLUDED IN ASSESSEE’S TOTAL INCOME--

When an Individual is Assessable in Respect of Remuneration of Spouse [Sec. 64(1)(ii)]:

3
AIR 1969 SC 888.
4
(1985) 21 Taxman 124.
The provision of Section 64(1) (ii) is applicable if the following conditions are satisfied:-

Condition 1 The taxpayer is an individual.

Condition 2 He/ She has a substantial interest in a concern.

Condition 3 Spouse of the taxpayer (i.e., husband/ wife of the taxpayer) is employed
in the above mentioned concern.

Condition 4 Spouse is employed in the concern without any technical or professional

knowledge or experience.

If the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, then salary income of the spouse will be taxable in
the hands of the taxpayer.

Other points one has to keep in view the following points-

Remuneration- Income to be clubbed in the hands of individual is limited to salary,

commission, fees or any other remuneration received by the spouse, directly or indirectly,
whether in cash or in kind. Any other income, not covered by the aforesaid categories is,
however, outside the scope of this section even if it accrues to the spouse from a concern in
which the individual has a substantial interest. Salary is computed in accordance with the
provisions of Section 15 to 17. Where wife of the assessee, managing director of a company,
received salary as a director of the company, it was held that only net salary of the wife, after
allowing standard deduction, could be clubbed with the income of her husband, the assessee.

Expression Concern appearing in S. 64(1)(ii) is a word of wide import and takes within its
sweep and ambit all organizations or establishments engaged in business or profession,
whether owned by company, partnership or individual or any other entity, it covers both
business concern and professional concern and both proprietary and non-proprietary
concerns. The two conditions mentioned in the proviso to Section 64(1)(ii) are cumulative
and not alternative. The object of explanation 2 to S. 64(1) is to create a legal fiction to
extend the application of S. 64(1)(ii) to concerns in which the interest of individual concerned
exceeds the limit specified therein. Its object is to widen the net of the section and not to
restrict it. J. M. Mokashi v. CIT5

5
(1994) 207 ITR 252 (Bom).
Substantial Interest- An individual has a substantial interest in any of the following
situations:

1. In case of a company- if an individual beneficially holds (individually or along with

his relatives) 20 percent or more of equity shares in a company at any time during the
previous year.

2. In case of a concern other than company- if an individual is entitled to 20 percent

profit in a concern (individually or along with his relatives) at any time during the
previous year.

When husband and wife both have substantial interest- the provisions are given below:

1. Both Husband and Wife have a substantial interest in a concern.

2. Both are in receipt of the remuneration from such concern.

3. Remuneration is received without any technical and professional qualification.

4. Remuneration will be included in the total income of husband or wife whose total
income, excluding such remuneration is greater.

Exception- Remuneration which is solely attributable to the application of technical or

professional knowledge and experience of the spouse will not be clubbed. Professional
qualification means fitness to do a job or undertake an occupation or vocation requiring
intellectual skill or requiring manual skill and which is such that a person should be able to
take out a living there from independently, though the salary does not cease to be product of
professional skill merely because particular employment is accepted. It is not necessary to
confine the word “technical” to qualification having technical subjects. The word technical
qualifications acquired by obtaining a certificate, diploma or a degree or in any form from a
recognized body like a university or an institute. That this was not the intention of the
legislature is clear from the use of the expression ‘knowledge and experience’ in the latter
part of the proviso, as otherwise it would have been perfectly permissible for the legislature
to use the same expression as occurring in the first part. The harmonious construction of the
two parts of the proviso would be that if a person possesses technical or professional
knowledge and the income is solely attributable to the application of such technical or
professional knowledge and experience, the requirement for the application of the proviso is
satisfied, although the person concerned may not posses any qualification issued by a
recognized body. - Batta Kalyani v. CIT6

The word technical or professional must receive a liberal construction as that term is not
defined in the section itself or elsewhere in the Act. The word technical is a term of wider
import. Any task required to be performed in an orderly and methodical manner which
requires some skill and knowledge for performance and which also involves certain degree of
complexity, can be regarded as technical. The fact that ordinarily the term technical is used in
relation to things mechanical or electrical or anything associated with machinery does not
warrant limiting the scope of the term in section 64. Similarly the word professional is again
a term of wide import. The varieties of profession are endless.

It is therefore necessary to consider these terms in the context of the facts which are required
to be considered in a given case. Regard must be had to the nature of the business carried on
by the concern, the nature of the technical or professional knowledge and experience in that
concern and the mind of technical or professional qualifications, knowledge and experiences
possessed by the spouse to whom the payment is made from that concern for the services
rendered by that person- CIT v. R. Jayalakshmi7

When an Individual is Assessable in Respect of Income from Assets transferred to

Spouse [Sec. 64(1)(iv)]:

The provision of Section 64(1) (iv) is applicable if the following conditions are satisfied:-

Condition 1 The taxpayer is an individual.

Condition 2 He/ She has transferred an asset (other than a house property).

Condition 3 The asset is transferred to his/her spouse.

Condition 4 The transfer may be direct or indirect.

Condition 5 The asset is transferred otherwise than (a) for adequate consideration,
or (b) in connection with an agreement to live apart.

Condition 6 The asset may be held by the transferee-spouse in the same form or in a

6
(1985) 20 Taxman 378 (AP).
7
(1998) 101 Taxman 350 (Mad.).
 different form

If above conditions are satisfied, any income from such asset shall be deemed to be the
income of taxpayer who has transferred the asset.

For computation of income from transferred asset, the income from assets transferred must be
regarded in the same way as it would be if the asset has not been transferred.

The above mentioned rule of clubbing is applicable if the transferor is an individual (i.e.,
husband or wife). If the transferor is a person other than an individual than the above
provisions are not applicable.

For Condition 2, if a house property is transferred and the above noted conditions are
satisfied then the transferor is deemed as owner of the property under Section 27.

The “relationship of husband and wife” should subsist both at the time of transfer of asset is
made to attract Section 64(1)(iv) and at the time when income is accrued- Philips John
Plasket Thomes v. C.I.T8
The word “transfer” in section 64 must be treated as having been used in the strict sense and
not in the sense of “including every means by which the property may be passed from one to
another”. Even if there is an indirect transfer, there must still be transfer of assets. The word,
“indirectly” does not destroy the significance of the word “transfer”.

Consideration for this Section 64(1)(iv) natural love and affection may be good consideration
but that would not be adequate consideration for the purpose of Section 64(1)- Moreover the
APHC, “Good consideration to support a contract under provisions of the Indian Contract
Act is one thing and ‘adequate consideration’ to avoid tax under the Income Tax Act is a
different thing. Since the law insists that the consideration for transfer must be adequate,
there must be some means to measure the adequacy of the consideration. This is to say, the
consideration that supports the transfer should be one, the value of which can be measured in
terms of money or money’s worth.” Therefore, religious or spiritual benefits are not
consideration which can be measured in terms of money or money’s worth.

Where an assessee transferred his land to his wife with a condition that she will construct a
residential house out of her own source and give a right of residence to the assessee for him

8
AIR 1964 SC 54.
and his two children for life, such a transfer does not come within the purview of this
provision. In the following cases Section 64(1)(iv) is not applicable:

1. If assets are transferred before marriage.

2. If assets are transferred for adequate consideration.
3. If assets are transferred in connection with an agreement to live apart.
4. If on the date of accrual of income, transferee is not spouse of the transferor.
5. If property is transferred by a karta of HUF, gifting coparcenary property to his wife.
6. If property is acquired by the spouse out of pin money (allowances given to the wife
by her husband for her dress and usual household expenses or household savings).

For Condition 4, the income that can be brought to tax under Section 64(1)(iv) must have a
nexus with the assets transferred directly or indirectly- Mohini Thaper v. CIT.9

When an Individual is Assessable in Respect of Income from Assets transferred to a

Person for the Benefit of Spouse [Sec. 64(1)(vii)]:

The provision of Section 64(1) (vii) is applicable if the following conditions are satisfied:-

Condition 1 The taxpayer is an individual.

Condition 2 He/ She has transferred an asset.

Condition 3 The transfer may be direct or indirect.

Condition 4 The asset is transferred to a person or an association of persons.

Condition 5 It is transferred for the immediate for deferred benefit of his/her spouse.

Condition 6 The transfer is without adequate consideration.

If the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, then income from such asset to the extent of such
benefit is taxable in the hands of the taxpayer who has transferred the asset.

In this provision, clubbing is not attracted for ‘non-existent’ income. If no income or benefit
is accrued or derived by wife directly or indirectly out of the property transferred by the

9
AIR 1964 SC 587.
individual, then “non-existence” income or benefit cannot be included in the income of
individual- Col. H. H Sir Harinder Singh v. CIT10

INCOME OF MINOR CHILD [Section 64(1A)]:

In reality as well as in law the minor children cannot administer their property nor can they
take decisions on the disposal of income arising out of it. This responsibility falls on parents,
who for all practical purposes, treat and use this income as part of their own income.
Exclusion of minor’s income from the income of parent’s also leads to tax avoidance.
However, income derived by the minor from manual work or from activity involving his
skill, talent or specialized knowledge or experience will not be included in the income of his
parent.

All income arising or accruing to the minor shall be clubbed in the income of his parent. The
income will be included in the income of that parent whose total income (excluding the
income includible under section 64(1A)) is greater. Where the marriage of the parent does not
subsist the income of the minor will be includible in the income of that parent who maintains
the minor child in the relevant previous year.

The minor’s income, in case both the parents are not alive, cannot be assessed in the hands of
the grandparent or any other relatives or even in the hands of minor. Also, Where any such
income is once included in the total income of either parent, any such income arising in any
succeeding year shall not be included in the total income of the other parent unless the AO is
satisfied that it is necessary to do so. In other words, once clubbing of minor’s income is done
with that of one parent, it will continue to be clubbed with that parent only in subsequent
years. However, if the income is to be clubbed with the income of the other parent, it can be
done after giving an opportunity of being heard to the other parent.

In the case of CIT v. Shri Ram Ratan11, three minor sons of the assessee were admitted to
the benefits of a partnership with initial contribution of capital at the time of firm’s
constitution. They also made subsequent investments and all the amounts were credited to the
minor’s accounts with the firm. Interest earned on the minor’s investment were added to the
assessee’s income by the ITO u/ S. 64(1)(iii). The AAC and the Tribunal, however held that
only the interest on the initial deposits could be included u/S. 64(1)(iii) and the interest

10
(1972) 83 ITR 416 (SC).
11
(1995) 129 CTR 335.
earned on subsequent investments could not be treated as income arising directly, indirectly
to the minors from their admission to the benefit of the firm. On a reference, it was held that
there was no material to show that while depositing the subsequent amounts there was any
separate contract with the minors nor was there any material to show that the interest credited
to the accounts of the minors was not in terms of the partnership deed and was in pursuance
of a independent contract. Therefore, the entire amount of interest received by the minors was
includible in the total income of the assessee in terms of S. 64(1)(iii) of the Act.

The onus lies on the department to establish a connection between the partnership of the
minor and the income sought to be hit by these provisions.

Te assessee was partner in a firm wherein his minor son was admitted to the benefits of
partnership. Regarding the inclusion of interest on certain deposits in the name of the minor
in the assessee’s total income, it was held that the amount standing to the credit of minor on
the basis of agreement amongst the partners could not be converted from deposit to capital.
Admittedly the father who was the natural guardian was not a party to the agreement. Hence,
interest upon deposit could not be included in the assessee’s total income.

In order to bring a case within the ambit of these provisions, the correct approach is to find
out whether there was a connection between the incomes of admission of the minor to the
benefits of the partnership. Such connection need not be direct, it may be indirect, and if there
is such connection, the minor’s income to be clubbed with that of his parent’s income.12

When clubbing of income of minor is not attracted:

1. Income of minor child suffering from any disability.

2. Income of minor child on account of any manual work.

3. Income of minor child on account of any activity involving application of his skill,
talent or specialized knowledge and experience.

Exemption- Finance Act inserted clause (32) in Section 10of the Income Tax Act. In case the
income of individual includes the income of his or her minor child in terms of Section
64(1A), such individual shall be entitled to exemption of Rs. 1500 in respect of each minor
child. Where, however the income of any minor so includible is less than 1500 the aforesaid

12
CIT v. Chinubhai M. Modi, (1968) 69 ITR 76 (Guj).
exemption shall be restricted to the income so included in the total income of the individual.
This provision is to provide relief to the individual in whose total income the income of the
minor child is to be included.

INCOME OF A PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND CANNOT BE CLUBBED:

Section 64 does not apply to the income received by a person of unsound mind. Section 64
provides only for the inclusion of the income received by the spouse or by a minor child but
not of that who is of unsound mind. In Rajendra Nath v. CIT13 it was held that no clubbing
was possible of the income of a minor son, who was of unsound mind, by virtue of the
provisions of S. 64.

OTHER PROFITS:

1. Income from the Accretion to Assets- Income arising to the transferee from the
property transferred is taxable in the hands of transferor. However income arising to
the transferee from the accretion of such property or from accumulated income of
such property is not includible in the total income of the transferor.

2. Clubbing of Negative Income- Under Section 64, the income of the specified person
is liable to be included in the total income of the individual for the purposes of
including income of specified person in the income of the individual; the word
income includes a loss. In other words, if income is negative and clubbing provisions
are applicable then negative income would be included.

DOUBLE TAXATION NOT POSSIBLE, AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION-

Proviso to S. 64(2):

Generally speaking, income is taxable, but only once. Double taxation is permissible only if
the legislature distinctly provides for it. Thus when the income of the wife from a firm, in
which her husband also happened to be a partner, had been included in the total income of the
husband by virtue of clubbing provisions, it was held that such income could not again be
taxed in the hands of the wife. And if it be so taxed, same was not valid.

13
(1991) 55 Taxman 205.
Where the amount in question received by way of salary was taxed in the hands of the
assesssee’s wife it could not be assessed again in the hands of the assessee.14

The assessee having certain deposits in his individual account with a firm, impressed them
with the character of HUF property and became a partner in the firm. Interest and share
income earned from the firm were assessed as individual income and the assessment had
become finalo. It was held in this case, CIT v. Mulkh Raj & Sons15 that in view of the
proviso to Section 64(2) in such a case where a particular income was included in the total
income of an individual, it has to be excluded from the total income of the HUF in which he
was a member. Therefore since the assessment of the assessee as individual had become final,
the interest and share income from the firm has to be excluded from the assessment of the
assessee HUF.

STRICT CONSTRUCTION NEEDED:

Section 64 of the Act, is an exception to the normal rule of taxing the income in the hands of
the recipient of the income. It purports to gross up the income of the minor child in the hands
of the parent. This being an exceptional measure will have to be strictly construed. Unless the
language of the provision is clear, tax-liability cannot be fastened on a person who is not
legally the owner of the income. Section 64 creates, so far as the transferor is concerned, an
artificial income and must therefore, be construed strictly. Also clubbing possible only when
there exists a specific provisions, i.e., unless and until there exists specific deeming
provisions for clubbing of income, the income of one entity cannot be clubbed with that of
another entity.16

PROVISIONS- WHETHER CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID:

 Section 16(3)(a)(i) & (ii) of the 1922 Act, was introduced with a view to check
evasion of tax and it was not ultra vires the power of the federal legislature under the
Government of India Act, 1935. Similarly the provisions of this section 64 are based
upon reasonable classification and do not infringe any of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Constitution of India.

14
ITO v. Vinod Kumar Soni, (2002) 258 ITR 717 (Del.)
15
(1982) 10 Taxman 300.
16
Sheo Mahendra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1976) 104 ITR (All).
  There is nothing in the fundamental concepts of Income Tax to prevent the imposition
of the immediate and apparent incidence of the tax on a person whose income is to be
assessed.
 Inclusion of minor’s share of profit in the income of his father who is also partner in
the same firm is not unconstitutional.
 Section 64(i) & (ii), is not violative of Article 14 and 19(i)(f) and (g) of the
Constitution.
 Section 64(1)(iii) providing for inclusion of the income of a minor from benefits of
partnership in which parent is not a partner is not unconstitutional and does not
violates Article 14.
 Section 64(1A) does not offend Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution as the main
objective behind the enactment of S. 64(1A) is that all the income of the minor should
be clubbed with the income of the parent (except that which has been specifically
excluded), since for all practical purposes, the parent treats and uses minor’s income
as a part of his or her own income. It S. 64(1A) is at least partially an anti avoidance
measure, would fall under Entry 82 of List I OF Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
itself. Also that this Section is not violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution
and therefore constitutionally valid. Also that Section 64(1A) providing for inclusion
of all income of minor child in the total income of the parent was a provision intended
to prevent evasion of tax and was not discriminatory and valid.

CONCLUSION:

“The entire process of ensuring that there is no avoidance of income by transfer of assets to a
spouse comes under the overall heading of clubbing. The effort behind clubbing is to ensure
that there is no avoidance of tax by an individual who has a lot of assets and hence is looking
to spread this across different names. Usually what happens is that when there is one working
member in the family then there is income in one name but the other person does not have”
“taxable income. The idea then is that the asset will be transferred to the partner or spouse so
that the income in the future will arise to the other person. This leads to a division of the
income among different names but when this actually happens then the person transferring
the asset will not be able to escape the tax net as the provisions of clubbing will come into
effect. In India, Income tax is levied on a slab system. However, there is a tendency among
the tax payers to reduce their tax liability especially those falling under higher tax brackets,
by transferring their assets in favor of their family members or by arranging their sources of
income in such a way that tax incidence fall on others, whereas the benefit of the income is
derived by them. In order to curb such practices of tax avoidance, necessary provisions have
been incorporated in sections 60 to 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Hence a person is liable
to pay tax on his own income as well as income belonging to others on fulfillment of certain
conditions. Inclusion of other’s incomes in the income of the assessee is called clubbing of
income and the income which is so included is called deemed income. Besides, one very
important aspect of these clubbing of income provisions is that they are applicable only for
individuals and no other type of assessee like firm, Company etc.”

SOURCES

 The Income Tax Act,1961

 IP Gupta “International Law in Relation to Double Taxation of Income (With

Particular Reference to India)”, 2007, LexisNexis Butterworths, New Delhi, India.

 Singhania Vinod k., “Taxmann Student’s guide to Income Tax”, 51st edition, 2014-

2015.

 Pithisaria & Pithisaria, “Direct Taxes Circular (1922-2011)”, Volume 1, 2011.

 http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/publications/6_Advance_Rulings/Chapter07.asp