HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Balaji v. Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle
Writ Petition No. 240 of 1960
[1962] 2 SCR 983 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 16(3)(a)(i), 16(3)(a)(ii), 25A and 26A · Government of India Act, 1935: Federal Legislative List, Entry 54 · Constitution of India: Articles 13, 14, 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 32 and 265; Union List Entry 82
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by K. Subba Rao, J. · P. B. Gajendragadkar, J. · K. Subba Rao, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · Raghubar Dayal, J.
Assessment years: 1955-56
01 · Facts of the case
After family partition, Balaji and his wife formed a registered partnership admitting their three minor sons to its benefits. For assessment year 1955-56, inclusion of the wife's and minors' shares raised his assessed total from the returned Rs.58,232 to Rs.2,44,625. His Article 32 petition challenged the clubbing provisions and sought to quash the assessment (SCR pp.985-987; PDF pp.3-5).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court sustained legislative competence on the narrower ground that the taxing entry supported anti-evasion measures, leaving the general power to tax one person's income in another's hands open. Family-partnership classification bore a rational connection to preventing evasion and could include genuine arrangements. Tax statutes remained subject to fundamental-rights scrutiny, but the restriction was reasonable in the circumstances assessed by the Court (SCR pp.988-1000; PDF pp.6-18).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The petition was dismissed with costs; sections 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) survived the legislative-competence, Article 14 and Article 19 challenges (SCR p.1000; PDF p.18).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue; the petitioner obtained neither invalidation of the provisions nor the requested assessment relief (SCR pp.987, 1000; PDF pp.5, 18).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: separate legislative competence, rational classification and reasonable restriction; validity of a tax does not follow from Article 265 alone. Registration and genuineness of a family partnership did not displace express historical clubbing. The Court's period-specific social assumptions must not be restated as present-day factual findings.
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 18-page SCR asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; preceding Roshan Lal Mehra report fragment on physical p.1 excluded.
- Catalogue source 1962_2_983_1000: SHA-256 4d23da3bc5b76ddca8faf6ac2c915b89c87e221e513c9582befa41fa0af239dc, 18 pages, read and visually inspected in full.
- The published original preserves the exact catalogue bytes and verified hash.
- The source verifies identity, bench, provisions, opinion structure and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment publication match was found.
Statutory scope
Historical 1922 Act clubbing provision and then-applicable constitutional property-right framework; no current section 64 or current-law clearance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.