https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49660 The Supreme Court held that the term "individual" in section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is limited to males and does not encompass females. Consequently, the income of minor sons from a partnership where their mother is a partner should not be included in the mother's total income. The Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1955 with costs, affirming that the income of minor sons should not be part of the mother's total income, and allowed Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1955 with costs, confirming that "individual" in this context excludes females. 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 The Supreme Court held that the term "individual" in section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is limited to males and does not encompass females. Consequently, the income of minor sons from a partnership where their mother is a partner should not be included in the mother's total income. The Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1955 with costs, affirming that the income of minor sons should not be part of the mother's total income, and allowed Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1955 with costs, confirming that "individual" in this context excludes females. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49660