HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. S.A.S. Marimuthu Nadar
Civil Appeals Nos. 427 and 428 of 1960
[1962] 3 SCR 102 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 2(6AA) and 16(3)(a)(ii)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by M. Hidayatullah, J. · P. B. Gajendragadkar, J. · K. Subba Rao, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J.
Assessment years: 1949-50, 1950-51
01 · Facts of the case
After partition of the family, the father and two major sons became partners and two minor sons were admitted to partnership benefits. The minors' shares were included in the father's total income, but earned-income relief was initially confined to his own share (SCR pp.102-104; PDF pp.1-3).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The statutory phrase had to cover the common case in which the assessed father or husband actively conducts the firm's business while the minor or wife is dormant. For a minor, requiring the minor personally to be an active partner would be impossible. The relief therefore followed income included in the active partner-parent's assessment (SCR pp.105-108; PDF pp.4-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The High Court's answer for the assessee was affirmed and both Revenue appeals were dismissed with costs (SCR p.108; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee on both years: earned-income relief covered the clubbed minor-share income (SCR pp.107-108; PDF pp.6-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: historical relief turned on who actively earned the partnership income after clubbing. Modern clubbing, partnership and rate provisions use different text, so the reasoning should not be treated as an automatic current deduction (based on SCR pp.106-108; PDF pp.5-7).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 7-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and seven-page count match catalogue asset 1962_3_102_108; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated case identity, bench, statutory issue and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed archive.
Statutory scope
The decision construes earned-income relief and clubbing provisions of the repealed 1922 Act; it does not state current clubbing or rate-relief law.
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.