https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70290 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. en-us Wed, 21 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:32:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70290 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70290