← All Phrases

“Section 64(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 64Section 64(1)19 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 64(1) is CIT v. J.H. Gotla (156 ITR 323), cited in 176 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 64(1)

CIT v. J.H. Gotla
156 ITR 323 · 1985 · Supreme Court
176
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that for income tax purposes, the term 'income' includes 'loss,' allowing for the set-off of a spouse's or minor child's business losses when their income is clubbed with the assessee. This decision emphasizes interpreting tax statutes, especially benevolent provisions, by considering the legislative scheme over a strict literal construction.

1921) 1 KB 64 and Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors.
6 SCC 550 · 2000 · Reported
106
citing judgments

The case holds that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly based on their plain language. Courts should not read anything into the statute, imply intendment, or consider equity, hardship, or injustice.

Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT v. Sreeni Printers
88 ITR 293 · 1973 · High Court
60
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a search under section 132(4) without independent corroborating evidence. Similarly, a penalty cannot be levied merely on the basis of assessment order findings, allowing the assessee to challenge the underlying facts in penalty proceedings.

Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT
106 ITR 64 · 1977 · Supreme Court
50
citing judgments

An assessee's admission serves as an important piece of evidence but is not conclusive. The assessee can demonstrate that such an admission was incorrect or was made under a mistaken understanding.

Ltd. v. ITO
64 DTR 251 · 2011 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's claim of being in the construction business and its use of the project completion method, and the Revenue did not take remedial measures under sections 263 or 147, indicating acceptance of the assessment.

Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT
64 TTJ 786 · 1999 · ITAT
36
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made based on seized documents that are unclear about whether the items represent payments, receipts, or other calculations, especially when corroborative evidence is lacking. Similarly, additions for investments based on seized papers are invalid if the items themselves were not found.

CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT
30 ITD 161 · ITAT
24
citing judgments

A statement recorded during a search cannot be the sole basis for an addition to income, especially if made in violation of CBDT instructions and the provisions of section 132(4).

UCO Bank v. DCIT
64 Taxmann.com 51 · 2015 · ITAT
20
citing judgments

The applicability of Section 115JB provisions is a matter for the Assessing Officer to consider, and judicial precedent, including the UCO Bank case, can be relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, this precedent may not hold good for assessment years post-amendment, particularly after Explanation 3 to Section 115JB was introduced.

Judgments citing Section 64(1)

Sivasundar Selvakumari, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT
Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

mortgage and the same was offered to tax in the return of income of the assessee’s husband for A.Y.2016-17 in terms of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act, since the asset had been transferred to spouse without consideration. 9. The notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued ... escapement of income. The capital gain had already been offered to tax in the hands of the assessee’s husband as mandated by section 64(1)(iv) of the Act. It was submitted that once income is statutorily includible in the hands of the transferor spouse, the same cannot

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32, Kolkata vs. Roselife Enclave LLP, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Duddhewala &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(1)

year in question. The Explanation refers to the computation of total income of the individual referred to in clause (i), of section 64(1). It is clearly stipulated in the Explanation that for the purpose of inclusion in terms of clause (i) the total income of the husband or wife

Kuldip Kumar Goel, Delhi vs. ACIT(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above

ITA 3285/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanand

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 250

transfer. The provisions contained in Section 124(3) of the Act deal with the same topic which was the subject-matter of Section 64(1) and (2) of the earlier Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922). There is, however this difference between these two provisions that whereas Section

Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1), New Delhi vs. Sahil Jain, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80J

that year but cannot be made applicable in respect of assessment for a previous year. 3. The Amending Act introduced a new Section 64(1) (iii) in the Income Tax Act with effect from 1.4.1976. The tax liability under the said provision could therefore be charged on the assessee

Smt Sushama Rajesh Rao, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 234BSection 250Section 49Section 50(2)Section 50C

transferred and capital gain is charged in the hands of the assessee which is not correct in view of the provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act. He submitted the fact that assessee is individual and wife of Shri. Rajesh Gundu Rao who gifted the property ... also mentioned that the impugned property sold is gift received by the assessee from her husband. He referred to provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act which provides that subject to the provisions of clause (1) of section 27 of the Act, income of an individual should also

JCIT OSD Central-1, Bhopal vs. M/S Shakshi Town Ship P Ltd, Gwalior

ITA 94/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 127Section 129Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Kavita Manoj Damani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officerm Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2648/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 64(1)(iv)

ground that the 50% share in the said property was gifted by her husband to her and, therefore, the provisions of Section 64(1)(iv) were applicable making her husband as the deemed owner but without appreciating that at the most only the net income after considering the eligible exemption ... said property i.e flat No. 402A/402B, then also her husband is the deemed owner of 50% of the said property as per section 64(1)(iv) of the I.T. Act. 5. It was held by the AO that in this case since the assessee's husband Mr. Manoj Damani

Shri Balbir Singh Verma, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT, Shimla

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

Lastly, the Pr. CIT noted that the assessee had gifted a property to his wife, who was earning rental income from it. Under Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, this income should have been clubbed with the assessee’s total income. However, the AO neither addressed this

Anatole Solutions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1082/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 56(2)(viib)

High Court, the substantial question of law for decision was whether law relating to clubbing of minor share son's of income under Section 64(1)(iii)which was introduced by Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975,w.e.f 1.04.1976 would be applicable for previous years coming ... High Court was pleased to decide at Para 17 of the order:- " Under the new provision, i.e. Section 64(1)(iii) a new liability has been prescribed and not the rate for ascertaining the liability. Such new liability under the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be given a retrospective effect

Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

particular year actually pending before an Income-tax Officer; (b) that the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 64(1) and (2) and had the right along with other bidi merchants to have its assessment proceedings before the Income Tax Officer of the area

Vivek Gangadhar Mehendale, Santacruz, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(1), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2644/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: ShriAnil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SRDR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54FSection 64(1)

disallowing appellant’s claim of exemption u/s 54. 2. The learned Commissioner of lncome Tax {Appeals} erred in not applying the provisions of section 64(1) of the I.T. Act in their correct import and amplitude. 3. The learned Commissioner of lncome Tax {Appeals} erred in not "appreciating that ... indexed cost of acquisition Rs.21,54,858/-, the assessee calculated long term capital gain U/s 54 of the Act read with section 64(1) of the Act. Further, the entire amount was invested for 4 Vivek Gangadhar Mehendale purchase of two adjacent flats amount to Rs.1,25,53,262/- including

A Govindaraj, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 Madurai, Central Range, Madurai vs. Chelladhurai Rajasingh, Sivakasi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 130/CHNY/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.130/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Dcit, Shri Chelladhurai Rajasingh, Central Circle-2, No.84, Railway Feeder Road, Madurai. Kamarajar Road, Sivakasi-626 123. [Pan: Aaqpr 9845 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

year in question. The Explanation refers to the computation of total income of the individual referred to in clause (i), of section 64(1). It is clearly stipulated in the Explanation that for the purpose of inclusion in terms of clause (i) the total income of the husband or wife

Silver Wings Life Spaces, Kota vs. DCIT Circle-1 Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in case of Loknath Goenka v. CIT (2019) 417 ITR 521 with reference to insertion of section 64(1)(iii) w.e.f. 01.04.1976 held that the tax liability under the said provision could be charged on the assessee in the assessment in the assessment ... capital credited to the minor sons out of the partnership firm was to be computed in the hands of their father under Section 64(1)(iii) in the Assessment year 1976-77. The said provision was introduced in the income Tax Act by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act 1975 with

Shubhankar Nayak, Mumbai vs. ITO 41 (2)(5), Bkc

ITA 4524/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194Section 199(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Satyaranjan Chand, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 125/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Satyaranjan Satyaranjan Chand, Chand, Plot Vs. Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of 3Rd No.Ga-722, 722, 3 Floor, Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Kalinga Nagar, K Kalinga Nagar, K-3-B, Po: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aajpc 7891 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawal Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11 /11/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawal walla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 263Section 54F

stand gets support from the order of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Smt. Maya wherein it was held that section 64(1)(iv) will not operate to nullify gift and would operate only to club income in the hands of donor assessee. 14. At this juncture

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

High Court, the substantial question of law for decision was whether law relating to clubbing of minor son’s share of income under Section 64(1)(iii) which was introduced by Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975, w.e.f 1.04.1976 would be applicable for previous years coming ... introduction of law. 4.40.iv Hon’ble High Court was pleased to decide at Para 17 of the order:- “…Under the new provision, i.e. Section 64(1)(iii) a new liability has been prescribed and not the rate for ascertaining the liability. Such new liability under the Income

M/S Quasar Developers Pvt. Ltd., 202, Ridhi Sidhi Bhawan, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 69A

Bench of Patna High Court in case of Loknath Goenka Vs. CIT (2019) 417 ITR 521/266 Taxman 199 with reference to insertion of section 64(1)(iii) w.e.f. 01.04.1976 held that the tax liability under the said provision could be charged on the assessee in the assessment which ... capital credited to the minor sons out of the partnership firm was to be computed in the hands of their father under Section 64(1)(iii) in the Assessment year 1976- 77. The said provision was introduced in the Income Tax Act by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act 1975 with

Sandeep Sethi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 155/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132(1)

High Court, the substantial question of law for decision was whetherlaw relating to clubbing of minor son’s share of income under Section 64(1)(iii)which was introduced by Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975,w.e.f 1.04.1976 would be applicable for previous years coming

Rajiv Nigotiya, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 154/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132(1)

High Court, the substantial question of law for decision was whetherlaw relating to clubbing of minor son’s share of income under Section 64(1)(iii)which was introduced by Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975,w.e.f 1.04.1976 would be applicable for previous years coming