https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193138 Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed strictly in relation to the income of minor sons arising from benefits of a partnership in which their mother was a partner. The provision was aimed at preventing tax avoidance through family arrangements, but the wording did not clearly extend to a mother assessee. In the absence of express language bringing her within the clause, the court preferred a construction in favour of the taxpayer and rejected reliance on the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius as controlling the result. The minor sons' income from the partnership benefits was therefore not includible in the mother's total income. en-us Tue, 13 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Nov 2018 16:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193138 Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed strictly in relation to the income of minor sons arising from benefits of a partnership in which their mother was a partner. The provision was aimed at preventing tax avoidance through family arrangements, but the wording did not clearly extend to a mother assessee. In the absence of express language bringing her within the clause, the court preferred a construction in favour of the taxpayer and rejected reliance on the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius as controlling the result. The minor sons' income from the partnership benefits was therefore not includible in the mother's total income. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193138