Skip to content


Popatlal Bhikamchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 38 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1960Bom223; (1959)61BOMLR1316; [1959]38ITR577(Bom)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 16(3)
AppellantPopatlal Bhikamchand
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Appellant AdvocateR.J. Kolah, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateG.N. Joshi, Adv.
Excerpt:
- section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it si open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the materials do not show that the accused does not..........on 9th august, 1947, the directors of the shree ram mills ltd., resolved to recommend the issue of bonus shares by increasing the capital of the company and a certain number of bonus shares were issued in the name of the assessee's minor son virendra. there was a further increase in the capital of the company on 30th december, 1947, and certain additional bonus shares were issued in his name. virendra, the minor son of the assessee, was thus allotted 744 bonus shares for his original holding of 350 shares. the income-tax officer held that the 350 shares originally transferred by the assessee and the 744 bonus shares were 'assets transferred' by the assessee, and computed his total income under section 16(3) of the income-tax act by including the dividend income from all these shares. the.....
Judgment:

Shah, J.

1. The assessee was the holder of 350 shares of the Shree Ram Mills Ltd. On 28th December, 1946, the assessee gifted these shares to his minor son Virendra. Under section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, the dividend income from these 350 shares was liable to be included in computing the total income of the assessee for the purpose of assessment. On 9th August, 1947, the directors of the Shree Ram Mills Ltd., resolved to recommend the issue of bonus shares by increasing the capital of the company and a certain number of bonus shares were issued in the name of the assessee's minor son Virendra. There was a further increase in the capital of the company on 30th December, 1947, and certain additional bonus shares were issued in his name. Virendra, the minor son of the assessee, was thus allotted 744 bonus shares for his original holding of 350 shares. The Income-tax Officer held that the 350 shares originally transferred by the assessee and the 744 bonus shares were 'assets transferred' by the assessee, and computed his total income under section 16(3) of the Income-tax Act by including the dividend income from all these shares. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. At the request of the assessee the Tribunal has referred for decision the question whether 'the dividend income from the 744 bonus shares held by the assessee's minor son is taxable in the hands of the assessee under section 16(3) of the Income-tax Act.'

2. Section 16(3) of the Income-tax Act, in so far as it is material, provides :

'In computing the total income of any individual for the purpose of assessment, there shall be included -

(a) so much of the income of a wife or minor child of such individual as arises directly or indirectly - ....

(iv) from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the minor child, not being a married daughter, by such individual otherwise than for adequate consideration.'

3. The assessee concedes that the dividend income from the 350 shares transferred by him to his minor son is liable to be included in computing his total income. He contends, however, that the dividend received from the 744 bonus shares is not liable to be included. In our judgment, the contention of the assessee must be accepted. The assets transferred by the assessee were 350 shares. The bonus shares were in the hands of the assessee's minor son undoubtedly an accretion to the assets transferred, but they could not be regarded as 'assets transferred' by the assessee. Mr. Joshi, who appears on behalf of the Department, contends that the dividend income from the bonus shares in the hands of the minor child is income which arose indirectly from assets transferred by the assessee and is liable to be included in computing the total income of the assessee for the purpose of assessment. But, in our judgment, the source of the dividend income from the bonus shares is not the assets transferred but the accretion thereto; and that income cannot be regarded as arising even indirectly from the assets transferred by the assessee. The Legislature has not by enacting section 16(3)(a)(iv) sought to tax in the hands of the assessee income arising from accretions to the assets transferred by him to his minor children.

4. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative. The Commissioner of Income-tax to pay the costs of the reference.

5. Question answered in the negative.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //