https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49660 Section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed by reference to its statutory setting and the mischief of tax avoidance through family partnerships. The majority applied the mischief rule and held that the term "individual" was intended to target male assessees, so the income of minor children admitted to the benefits of a partnership in which the mother was a partner was not includible in her total income. The dissent treated "individual" as including both sexes and read the provision as covering tax avoidance arrangements involving a mother as well. The ratio is that an ambiguous taxing provision may be restricted by context and legislative purpose. en-us Fri, 17 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2015 10:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49660 Section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed by reference to its statutory setting and the mischief of tax avoidance through family partnerships. The majority applied the mischief rule and held that the term "individual" was intended to target male assessees, so the income of minor children admitted to the benefits of a partnership in which the mother was a partner was not includible in her total income. The dissent treated "individual" as including both sexes and read the provision as covering tax avoidance arrangements involving a mother as well. The ratio is that an ambiguous taxing provision may be restricted by context and legislative purpose. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49660