HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Col. H. H. Sir Harinder Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh
Civil Appeals Nos. 1488-1491 of 1969
[1972] 2 SCR 1 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 9(2) and 16(3)(b)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by C. A. Vaidialingam, J. · C. A. Vaidialingam, J. · P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. · K. K. Mathew, J.
Assessment years: 1957-58 to 1960-61
01 · Facts of the case
The assessee settled U.K. securities on a bank trust, from which his minor daughter received annual sums that Revenue clubbed with his income. He also claimed the residential reduction for two separately located New Delhi houses found to be occupied as his residences (SCR pp.3-6; PDF pp.3-6).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 16(3)(b) covered transfer to any person for a minor's benefit and did not require direct transfer or ultimate corpus vesting; only the minor's accrued or received beneficial share was includible. The second proviso's express one-house limit showed the first proviso was not inherently limited to one house (SCR pp.9-15; PDF pp.9-15).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The trust-income question was answered for Revenue and the second-house question for the assessee. The High Court judgment was modified, the appeals partly allowed and each side bore its own costs (SCR p.15; PDF p.15).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Mixed final result. This judgment is distinct from the separately published personal-immunity case at [1972] 2 SCR 16 (SCR p.15; PDF p.15).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: for clubbing, separate corpus transfer, trustee identity, annual entitlement and actual accrual or receipt. For house relief, prove qualifying occupation property by property under the year-specific text (based on SCR pp.11-15; PDF pp.11-15).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 15-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 15-page count match catalogue asset 1972_2_1_15; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated 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
Both holdings concern materially different provisions of the repealed 1922 Act; current clubbing and self-occupied-property rules require fresh review.
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.