Clubbing of Income
Clubbing of income is one of the most important anti-avoidance mechanisms under the Income Tax Act, 1961, designed to prevent taxpayers from reducing their tax liability by transferring income or assets to close relatives or associates. In essence, clubbing provisions ensure that income legally belongs to the assessee, even if it arises in the hands of another person due to a transfer without adequate consideration or through indirect arrangements. This prevents artificial shifting of income and protects the integrity of the tax base.
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the purpose of these provisions. In CIT v. Keshavji Morarji (1967), the Court highlighted that clubbing aims to strike at attempts to evade tax through legally permissible but substantively artificial arrangements. Thus, clubbing provisions operate not to penalize legitimate transfers but to examine the substance of the transaction over form.
Understanding clubbing is crucial for students of tax law because it requires analyzing intent, relationship between parties, adequacy of consideration, and control over income or assets. The provisions reflect the broader principle that taxation must follow the real owner of the income, not just the ostensible recipient.
Concept and Purpose of Clubbing
Clubbing provisions (Sections 60–64) treat someone else’s income as the assessee’s income if it arises due to a transfer lacking genuine commercial intent. This ensures that tax liability corresponds to actual economic benefit.
The underlying legal philosophy rests on the doctrine that “a person cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly.” Therefore, if a taxpayer cannot avoid tax by directly refusing or diverting income, he cannot achieve the same outcome through indirect transfers or arrangements.
Clubbing provisions operate in specific situations, especially involving:
- Spouses
- Minor children
- Son’s wife
- Revocable transfers
- Transfers without adequate consideration
- Indirect or cross transfers
Courts have repeatedly reaffirmed that these provisions are to be interpreted strictly to prevent tax evasion while safeguarding genuine arrangements. In Philip John Plasket Thomas v. CIT (1963), the Court emphasized examining the real nature of transactions before determining whether clubbing is applicable.
Section 60: Transfer of Income Without Transfer of Asset
Section 60 applies when an assessee transfers only income to another person without transferring the underlying asset that generates the income. In such cases, income continues to be taxable in the hands of the transferor.
For example, if a person allows his interest income from a bank deposit to be credited to his spouse’s account while retaining ownership of the deposit, the income will be clubbed back to him.
Courts, including in CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961), have clarified that the right to receive income must accompany ownership; otherwise, the transfer remains ineffective for taxation purposes. This section ensures that tax liability remains tied to ownership, not merely the flow of funds.
“Tip: Always check whether the underlying asset has genuinely changed hands; if not, Section 60 likely applies.”
Section 61–63: Revocable Transfers
A revocable transfer is one where the transferor retains the power to reassume, modify, or revoke the transfer. Under Section 61, income arising from revocable transfers is always taxed in the hands of the transferor.
Section 63 clarifies that revocable transfers include arrangements where:
- The transferor retains control
- Benefits can be reassumed
- The transferee holds possession only temporarily
The principle was strengthened in CIT v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1959), where the Court held that a transfer is considered revocable even if it contains indirect or deferred rights of resumption. Thus, what matters is substance: if control or benefit ultimately goes back to the transferor, clubbing applies.
“Tip: If the transferor can get back the asset or income in any form, the transfer is revocable.”
Section 64(1)(ii): Income of Spouse from Concern Where Individual Has Substantial Interest
This provision applies when one spouse earns income from a business or professional concern in which the other spouse has substantial interest—i.e., 20% or more voting power or profit entitlement.
However, the spouse’s income from personal skills or professional knowledge is not clubbed. This was clarified in S. V. Chinnathamban v. CIT (2007), where the Court held that special skill-based remuneration to a spouse is not clubbed if earned independently.
The provision prevents artificial salary arrangements aimed at reducing tax liability within family-owned businesses.
“Tip: Identify whether the spouse’s remuneration is due to skill or relationship; this decides clubbing.”
Section 64(1)(iv): Transfer of Assets to Spouse Without Adequate Consideration
If an assessee transfers an asset to their spouse without adequate consideration (or via indirect arrangements), income arising from the asset is clubbed back.
Example:
Transferring a rental property to a spouse for free or nominal value results in rental income being taxable in the hands of the transferor.
In CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh (1970), the Supreme Court held that even indirect transfers—such as gifting capital to sons who then transfer to the spouse—will attract clubbing if the real intent is to divert income. Substance prevails over form.
“Tip: Always analyze whether consideration reflects real market value; inadequacy triggers clubbing.”
Section 64(1)(vi): Transfer to Son’s Wife
To prevent indirect benefits passed to the daughter-in-law, clubbing also applies when an asset is transferred to a son’s wife without adequate compensation. The income arising from such assets is clubbed in the hands of the transferor.
Courts view this provision as protecting the tax system from evasive family structuring, recognizing the possibility of using the son’s wife as a conduit.
“Tip: Any gratuitous transfer to daughter-in-law should immediately raise clubbing considerations.”
Section 64(1A): Clubbing of Income of Minor Child
The income of a minor child (except income from manual work or specialized skill) is clubbed with the parent whose income is higher.
This rule was introduced to curb the misuse of minor children’s accounts for investments and tax sheltering. However, income of minors suffering from a disability under Section 80U is not clubbed.
In CIT v. Man Mohan Das (1966), the Court emphasized that income must genuinely be attributable to the minor’s personal skill to avoid clubbing.
The parent receiving the clubbed income is allowed an exemption of ₹1,500 per child under Section 10(32).
“Tip: Check the nature of minor’s income—skill-based income remains outside clubbing.”
Section 64(2): Conversion of Self-Acquired Property into HUF Property
When an individual converts personal assets into Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property, income derived from such assets is clubbed back to the transferor. This prevents shifting of personal tax burden to the HUF.
The Supreme Court in Pushpa Devi v. CIT (1977) clarified that even when income arises indirectly from converted property, clubbing will apply.
“Tip: Voluntary blending of assets into HUF triggers Section 64(2) consequences automatically.”
Judicial Interpretation and Key Principles
Courts have helped shape clubbing provisions with consistent themes:
- Economic ownership prevails over legal ownership.
- Substance of transaction governs taxation.
- Artificial arrangements must be scrutinized.
In McDowell & Co. v. CTO (1985), the Supreme Court discouraged tax avoidance, stating that fiscal legislation must not be reduced to “a game of clever arrangements.”
Thus, clubbing provisions represent an essential anti-avoidance arm of taxation, ensuring revenue protection and fairness.
Conclusion
Clubbing of income plays a crucial role in preventing tax evasion and maintaining the integrity of the tax system. By attributing income to the real economic owner rather than the nominal recipient, Sections 60–64 ensure fairness, transparency, and legal consistency. For students and practitioners of tax law, understanding these provisions requires careful analysis of relationships, consideration, control over assets, and the true nature of transactions. Clubbing provisions ultimately embody the principle that taxation must reflect real earnings and not be distorted through artificial transfers.
Also Read