CHANDULAL HARJIVANDAS, JAMNAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT.
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the appeal should be allowed. The Court found that the contract of insurance, when read as a whole, was in substance a contract of life insurance with regard to the life of the assessee. The Court reasoned that Section 15(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, requires two conditions to be satisfied for exemption: (i) the premium must have been paid by the assessee himself, and (ii) the payment must have been made to effect an insurance on the life of the assessee himself. It was not disputed that the premium was paid by the assessee out of his taxable income. The Court considered the specific clauses regarding adoption upon majority and entitlement to benefits as ancillary or subordinate to the main purpose of insuring the assessee's life. The object of Section 15(1) is to encourage thrift, and the section should be interpreted to support this object. Therefore, rebate under Section 15(1) was admissible on the premium paid during the assessee's minority. The operative direction was to allow the appeal with costs.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a minor, was the life assured under a Children's Deferred Endowment Assurance policy taken out in 1959 by his father. The premium of Rs. 1,925 per annum was paid from the assessee's taxable income. The policy stipulated that the assessee could adopt it upon attaining majority, after which it would be a contract between him and the Life Insurance Corporation. If not adopted, the proposer would be entitled to amounts payable. If the assessee died before the deferred date, the policy would be cancelled, and premiums paid would be returned to the proposer. For assessment year 1960-61, the assessee claimed a rebate under Section 15(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Appellate Tribunal, and Gujarat High Court rejected the claim, holding that the contract was not solely on the assessee's life.
What were the issues?
1. Whether rebate under Section 15(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is admissible on the premiums paid during the minority of the assessee for a Children's Deferred Endowment Assurance policy where the father was the proposer and the assessee was the life assured, with specific clauses regarding adoption upon attaining majority and entitlement to benefits. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the premium was paid out of his taxable income and that the policy, in substance, was an insurance on his life, thus qualifying for rebate under Section 15(1). Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the contract was primarily between the Life Insurance Corporation and the assessee's father. It argued that the assessee was not entitled to the policy benefits until he adopted the contract upon attaining majority, and that under certain conditions, the proposer, not the assessee or his heirs, would be entitled to the proceeds or premiums paid. Therefore, it was not a direct insurance on the assessee's life for the purpose of the rebate.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 15(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
• .... A B c D E F G CHANDULAL HARJIVANDAS, JAMNAGAR v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT.
October 14, 1966 (J.C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.)
Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), s. 15(1)-Children's Deferred Endow- ment Assurance-Assured a minor-Proposer of insuranc.e his father- Payment of premium out of taxable incorn, of assured-If entitled to rebate of income-tax.
The father of the assessee was the proposer, in 1959, of a policy called Children's Deferred Endowment Assurance, the life assured being that of the assessee, who was a minor. Under the contract of insurance, the Life Insurance Corporation of India Was liable to pay the sum assured (a) on the stipulated date of maturity, if the life assured was alive on that date, or (b) if the life assured were to die before that date, provided that the death occurred on or after the deferred date specified in the policy. A s~ cial clause of the policy provided that at any time after attaming majonty and before the deferred date, the life assured may adopt the policy and on such adoption, the policy was to be a contract between the Corporation and the life assured as the absolute owner of the policy from the date
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
