Strict construction of income-clubbing rules excludes a step-son's minor children from section 64(1)(vi) coverage.

Section 64(1)(vi) was held not to extend to income arising to the minor children of a step-son, because the inclusive definition of "child" in section 2(15A) cannot be read as replacing the word "son" in the clubbing provision. The provision was required to be strictly construed, and even on a purposive reading it was aimed at persons closely connected with, and under the assessee's control. A step-son was not treated as an heir under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, reinforcing that the statutory clubbing rule did not cover this relationship. The addition was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the clubbing provision in section 64(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies to income arising to the minor children of a step-son, in view of the inclusive definition of "child" in section 2(15A).

Analysis: The provision in question had to be strictly construed. The inclusive definition of "child" could operate only where that expression was used, and could not be extended to substitute the word "son" in section 64(1)(vi). Even on a purposive approach, the income-clubbing provision was intended to apply to persons closely connected with and amenable to the assessee's control, and a step-son was not treated as an heir under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Conclusion: The clubbing provision did not apply to the income of the minor children of the step-son, and the addition was not sustainable.

---