S. SRINIVASAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, are valid and do not offend Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution, a point conceded by the appellant's counsel in light of previous Supreme Court decisions. Regarding the second issue, the Court ruled that the interest credited to the wife and minor sons on accumulated profits was includible in the assessee's income. The reasoning was that these accumulated profits were not to be equated with deposits or loans. The wife and minors earned these profits due to their membership or admission to the benefits of the firm. They allowed the firm to use these profits without a specific arrangement, indicating their continued interest in the firm. The interest was allowed simply because the funds belonged to a partner or minors admitted to the benefits. Therefore, the interest indirectly arose and accrued to them because of their capacity as defined in Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii). The Court distinguished the case from those involving deposits or loans, finding the principle in Bhogilal Laherchand inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee was a partner in a firm along with his wife and a stranger. Two minor sons of the assessee were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The partnership deed allowed partners to advance loans to the firm and receive interest up to 12%. Profits allocated to the wife and minor sons accumulated in the firm's accounts. Initially, no interest was paid on these accumulations. However, from the accounting year 1956-57 onwards, the firm started paying 9% interest per annum on these accumulated profits. The revenue sought to include this interest in the assessee's income under Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee challenged this, arguing that the interest was not includible. The Income-tax Officer disagreed, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner partially ruled in favour of the assessee regarding the interest. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, partly rejected the assessee's claim, holding that interest on accumulated profits was includible, but interest on capital provided by grandparents was not.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the provisions of Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, offend clauses (f) and (g) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India? - Assessee's contention: The provisions are ultra vires and beyond the legislative powers of Parliament. - Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implicitly supported the validity of the section by seeking to apply it. 2. Whether interest credited by the firm to the assessee's wife and minor children, attributable to past profit accumulations, is includible in the assessment of the assessee under Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii)? - Assessee's contention: The accumulated profits should be treated as deposits or loans, and interest earned on them does not arise directly or indirectly from the wife's partnership or the minors' admission to the benefits of the partnership. Reliance was placed on Bhogilal Laherchand v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City. - Revenue's contention: The interest indirectly arose from the wife's and minors' capacities mentioned in Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii), making it includible in the assessee's income. Reliance was placed on Chouthmal Kejriwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, and Akula Venkatasubbaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 16(3)(a)(i), Section 16(3)(a)(ii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
• • • A B c D E F G • S. SRINIVASAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS October 4, 1966 (J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.)
Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), s. 16(3) (a)(i) and (ii)-Assessee a~d .his wife partners in a firnz-Minor sons entitled to benefits-Profits of wife and minor sons a!lolved to accu1nulate with ·firm-Payment of interest by fjrnz-Wfzether can be included in inco111e of the assess.ee.
The appellant was a partner in a firm in which the o'her two partners. were his wife and a stranger.
Two minor sons of the appellant were also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Under the partnership deed, the shares of tha five persons in the profits were defined, and it was also provided that a partner may advance a loan for meeting the expenses of the firm and receive Interest on such Joan upto 12%. The amounts of profits falling to the shares of the wife and sons were allowed to accumu- late in the accounts of the firm. Till the beginning of the accounting year 1956-57, the profits that were accumulating were kept without any interest, but thereafter the firm allowed interest at 9% per annum.
On the ques- tion whether the interest
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 →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
