This document summarizes three court cases related to clubbing of income: 1) J M Mokashi v. CIT (1994): The spouse did not have any technical/professional qualifications and was only employed as a receptionist-accountant, so her income could not be excluded from clubbing. 2) Batta Kalyani v. CIT (1985): The court found the intention was for the proviso to apply if a person has technical/professional knowledge and experience, even without a recognized qualification. 3) Philip John Plasket Thomas v. CIT AIR 1964 SC 54: For section 64(1)(iv) to apply for transfer of assets between spouses, the relationship

1. CASES OF CLUBBING OF
INCOME

2. J M MOKASHI V. CIT 1994 (BOM)
In the instant case, the spouse of the assessee neither possessed any technical or
professional qualification nor was she paid for any technical or professional
services rendered by her. Admittedly, she had passed first year arts of the bombay
university and that was her only qualification. She was employed by her husband,
the assessee in this case, as receptionist-cum-accountant and paid a salary for that
employment.
In such a case, it is not only difficult but impossible to hold that she possessed any
―technical or professional qualification‖ which is necessary to bring her within the
proviso. That being so, the proviso to section 64(1)(ii) is not applicable to her and,
as such, the assessee is not entitled to get the benefit thereof to bring her income
out of the purview of the clubbing provision contained in section 64(1)(ii).

3. BATTA KALYANI V. CIT (1985)
That this was not the intention of the legislature is clear from the use of
the expression "knowledge and experience" in the latter part of the
proviso, as otherwise it would have been perfectly permissible for the
legislature to use the same expression as occurring in the first part.
The harmonious construction of the two parts of the proviso, in our
opinion, would be that if a person possesses technical or professional
knowledge and the income is solely attributable to the application of
such technical or professional knowledge and experience, the
requirement for the application of the proviso is satisfied, although the
person concerned may not possess any qualification issued by a
recognised body.

4. PHILIP JOHN PLASKET THOMAS V. CIT AIR 1964 SC
54
Relationship of husband and
wife must also subsist when
transfer of asset is made to
attract section 64 (1) (iv).

5. Thank