Case Name : CIT Vs. Venu Suresh Sanjay Trust
Citation :[1996] 221 ITR 649 (MAD.)
Court : Madras High Court
Section : 80L
Meaning : The term ‘individual’ as used in the income-tax act does not mean a single living human being but would include in its ambit, a body of individuals constituting a unit for the purposes of the act. A group of individuals may as well come in for treatment as an individual under the tax laws if the context so requires. The word ‘association’ means ‘to join in any purpose’ or ‘to join in action’. Therefore, ‘association of persons’ as used in section 2(31)(v) means an association in which two or more persons join in a common purpose or common action. The mere fact that the beneficiaries or the trustees, being representative-assessees, are more than one, cannot lead to the conclusion that they constitute ‘an association of persons’. The trustees of a discretionary trust have to be assessed in the status of an ‘individual’.
Case Name : ITO Vs. Vidarbha Vibhagiya Macchhimar Sahakari Sangh
Citation :[1986] 18 ITD 207 (NAG. – TRIB.)
Court : Itat-Nagpur
Section : 80P
Meaning : The term ‘individual’ does not refer to human beings alone; it should be interpretated as including a group of persons forming a unit.
Case Name : Jogendra Nath Naskar Vs. CIT
Citation :[1969] 74 ITR 33 (SC)
Court : Supreme Court
Section : 2(31)
Meaning : The word ‘individual’ in section 3 of the 1922 act includes within its connotation all artificial juridical persons.
Case Name : ITO Vs. C.K. Mammed Kayi
Citation :[1981] 129 ITR 307 (SC)
Court : Supreme Court
Section : 2(31)
Meaning : The term ‘individual’ in section 3 of the 1922 act includes within its ambit mapilla marumakkattayam tarwad and they are well within the purview of the taxing provisions of the enactment.
Case Name : Cwt Vs. Puthiya Ponmanichintakam Wakf
Citation :[1967] 63 ITR 787 (KER.)
Court : Kerala High Court
Section : 2(31)
Meaning : The expression ‘individual’ can only mean one of the human kind, a man or a woman.
Case Name : CIT Vs. Ahmedabad Millowners’ Association
Citation :[1939] 7 ITR 369 (BOM.)
Court : Bombay High Court
Section : 2(31)
Meaning : Individual’ where first used, must be human being, because it is used as something distinct from a joint family, firm and company. One cannot give to the word ‘individuals’ in the expression ‘association of individuals’ a different meaning to that which the word ‘individuals’ bears where it appears in the same phrase.
Case Name : Udham Singh Vs. CIT
Citation :[1987] 35 TAXMAN 275 (ORI.)
Court : Orissa High Court
Section : 2(31)
Meaning : The expression ‘individual’ is now a unit of assessment and referable only to a natural person, i.E., A human being, a situation different from that in the indian income-tax act, 1922.
Case Name : CIT Vs. Shri Krishna Bandar Trust
Citation :[1993] 201 ITR 989 (CAL.)
Court : Kolkata High Court
Section : 2(31)
Meaning : It is now well-settled that the word ‘individual’ does not necessarily and invariably always refer to a single natural person. A group of individuals may as well come in for treatment as an individual under the tax laws if the context so requires.
Case Name : CIT Vs. Shri Om Prakash
Citation :[1996] 217 ITR 785 (SC)
Court : Supreme Court
Section : 64
Meaning : Sub-section (1) of section 64 of the income-tax act, 1961, opens with the words ‘in computing the total income of any individual’. Then it proceeds to say that in the total income of such individual shall be included the income of his spouse arising from the membership of such spouse in the partnership firm in which such individual is the partner. It further says that the income arising to the minor children of such individual who are admitted to the benefits of partnership wherein such individual is a partner shall also be included in the total income of such individual. An individual can be a partner in a partnership firm in his individual capacity or in the capacity of the karta of a hindu undivided family or, for that matter, in any other capacity, e.G., As a trustee. There may be a firm comprising an individual and his wife, to which their minor children are admitted. There can also be a firm comprising two or more individuals wherein the wife, wives of one or more of the partners are also partners. The minor children of one or more of the partners may also have been admitted to the benefits of the partnership firm. So far as other partners in the partnership firm are concerned, they are not really concerned in what capacity a particular person is a partner, i.E., Whether as an individual, as a karta, as a trustee or otherwise. To them he is an individual, a person. This aspect, however, becomes relevant as between the partner and those whom he represents in the partnership firm. To wit, where a person is a partner as the karta of a hindu undivided family, the capacity in which he is a partner in the partnership firm is relevant as between him and the other members of the hindu undivided family. For, the income the karta receives as a partner is not his individual income; it is the income of the hindu undivided family and he receives it on behalf of the hindu undivided family. It is for this reason that the income of the wife and minor children arising from their membership/admission to the benefits of the partnership firm is held not includible in the income of the hindu undivided family since the total income of the hindu undivided family is not the total income of the individual (husband or father, as the case may be). For section 64(1) to get attracted, it is necessary that the husband/father should be a partner in a partnership firm as an individual, i.E., In his individual capacity. It is not attracted where he is a partner as the karta of the hindu undivided family to which such wife and/or minor children belong.
Case Name : Smt. Priti Lata Samanta Vs. CIT
Citation :[1971] 79 ITR 18 (ALL.)
Court : Allahabad High Court
Section : 64
Meaning : In contingencies contemplated by section 64, income derived directly or indirectly by certain classes of persons can be added to the total income of an individual, whether he be a male or a female. The circumstances referred to in clauses (i) to (v) in section 64 are independent of each other and it cannot be argued that for the purposes of clause (ii) of section 64 the ‘individual’ whose total income is to be computed should be situated in the same circumstances as in section 64(i). There is nothing in section 64(ii) to indicate that the words ‘such individual’ have been used in the sense as an individual situated in the circumstances covered by clause (i) only i.E., A person who has a spouse living at the time. Read with the opening words of section 64, the words ‘such individual’ as used in clauses (i) and (ii) of the section merely mean an individual whose total income is to be computed, whether that individual be a male or a female. A widow certainly would be an individual covered by the opening words of section 64. Thus, where a minor child derived share income from a firm in which his widow mother was a partner, it was held that the share income was includible in the income of the mother.