Skip to content


Musta Quima Belgum, in Re. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Case No. 309 of 1949
Reported in[1953]23ITR345(All)
AppellantMusta Quima Belgum, in Re.
Cases ReferredSrimati Chanda Devi v. Commissioner of Income
Excerpt:
- .....anwarul haq was a partner in a registered firm mohammed hasan noorul haque. he died and his two minor children, srimati hafsa bibi and israrul haq, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. the question was whether the shares of profits of these two minor children could be added to the income of their mother srimati mustaquima begum under the provision of section 16 (3)(a)(ii) of the indian income-tax act. learned counsel has urged that srimati chanda devis case was wrongly decided because an examination of the whole section indicates that the individual contemplated in that sub-section is one who is capable of having a wife and as a woman cannot have a wife, the sub-section cannot apply to her. this argument was considered in our previous decision and there is, therefore, no.....
Judgment:

MALIK, C.J. - The question referred in this case is concluded by a decision of this Court in Srimati Chanda Devi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.

One Anwarul Haq was a partner in a registered firm Mohammed Hasan Noorul Haque. He died and his two minor children, Srimati Hafsa Bibi and Israrul Haq, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The question was whether the shares of profits of these two minor children could be added to the income of their mother Srimati Mustaquima Begum under the provision of Section 16 (3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Learned counsel has urged that Srimati Chanda Devis case was wrongly decided because an examination of the whole section indicates that the individual contemplated in that sub-section is one who is capable of having a wife and as a woman cannot have a wife, the sub-section cannot apply to her. This argument was considered in our previous decision and there is, therefore, no reason to say anything more.

We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. The assessee must pay costs to the other side which we assess at Rs. 300.

Reference answered in the affirmative.


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