Clubbing, Set-Off and Deductions from Gross Total Income — Practice

Question 1

Mr. Iyer, without transferring ownership of a rented building, executes a deed assigning the rental income to his adult son for five years. Separately, Mr. Joshi transfers a fixed deposit to a trust with a provision allowing him to reclaim the principal after three years. State the tax treatment of the income from each arrangement.

Accepted Answer

The rental income assigned by Mr. Iyer remains taxable in his own hands. Section 60 provides that where a person transfers income from an asset without transferring the asset itself, that income is taxable in the hands of the transferor, and this applies regardless of whether the transfer of income is revocable or irrevocable. Mr. Iyer has assigned only the income stream, retaining ownership of the building itself, which is precisely the transaction section 60 is aimed at: it closes the obvious device of separating the enjoyment of income from the ownership of its source while claiming the income has left the transferor's hands for tax purposes. The five-year duration of the assignment makes no difference to this conclusion, since section 60 draws no distinction based on whether the income transfer is temporary or permanent. The fixed deposit interest under Mr. Joshi's trust arrangement is also taxable in his own hands, but under a different provision addressing a different structure: section 61 clubs income arising from an asset under a revocable transfer with the transferor, and a transfer is deemed revocable if it contains any provision for re-transfer, directly or indirectly, of the whole or any part of the asset to the transferor, or gives the transferor a right to resume power over the asset. Mr. Joshi's right to reclaim the principal after three years is exactly such a re-transfer provision, making the transfer revocable notwithstanding that the asset itself, the fixed deposit, was formally transferred to the trust; the interest income from it is therefore clubbed with Mr. Joshi rather than being taxed in the trust's or the beneficiaries' hands.

Question 2

Mr. Kapadia holds 30% of the equity of a private company. His wife, a qualified chartered accountant, is employed by the company as its finance controller at a market-rate salary reflecting her qualification and experience. Advise on whether her salary is clubbed with Mr. Kapadia's income.

Accepted Answer

The salary is not clubbed, provided the facts as stated genuinely reflect the application of Mrs. Kapadia's professional qualification. Section 64(1) clubs remuneration received by an individual's spouse from a concern in which the individual has a substantial interest, and a 30% equity holding comfortably exceeds the substantial interest threshold of 20% voting power or profit share, so Mr. Kapadia's holding brings the arrangement within the provision's scope in principle. But the provision carries an express exception: clubbing does not apply where the spouse possesses technical or professional qualifications and the remuneration is solely attributable to the application of that knowledge or experience. Mrs. Kapadia is a qualified chartered accountant employed in a role, finance controller, that directly and substantially calls on that qualification, and her salary is stated to be at a market rate reflecting it, which is exactly the situation the exception is designed to protect: a genuinely qualified spouse earning a commercially justified salary for work that draws on real expertise should not be penalised merely because her husband also happens to hold a substantial interest in the same company. Had her role been nominal, or her qualification unconnected to her actual duties, or her remuneration well above what the role and market would independently justify, the exception would not protect the arrangement, and the excess or the whole remuneration, depending on the facts, would be clubbed with Mr. Kapadia as not being solely attributable to genuine professional application.

Question 3

Mr. Lal transfers a rental property to Mrs. Mehta, his friend's wife, without adequate consideration. Simultaneously, Mr. Mehta transfers an equivalent value of shares to Mrs. Lal, also without adequate consideration. Neither has transferred an asset to his own spouse. Advise on the tax treatment, and explain the principle applied.

Accepted Answer

Despite the formal absence of any transfer between each individual and his own spouse, the income from each asset is clubbed with the original transferor as though the assets had been transferred directly to his own spouse. This is the cross-transfer principle, developed through case law applying a substance-over-form approach to the clubbing provisions: where two persons transfer assets to each other's spouses reciprocally, with the intention and effect of circumventing section 64, the arrangement is treated according to its real substance rather than its formal structure. The economic effect of Mr. Lal transferring the rental property to Mrs. Mehta and Mr. Mehta transferring shares to Mrs. Lal is identical to Mr. Lal transferring the property to his own wife, Mrs. Lal, and Mr. Mehta transferring the shares to his own wife, Mrs. Mehta — each spouse ends up with an asset from someone connected to their own spouse's reciprocal arrangement, and each transferor's own spouse is enriched as a result of the paired transactions taken together. So the rental income from the property, though nominally received by Mrs. Mehta, is clubbed with Mr. Lal, and the income from the shares, though nominally received by Mrs. Lal, is clubbed with Mr. Mehta, precisely reversing the labels on the formal transfer documents to reflect where the real economic benefit to each transferor's own spouse actually landed. The principle exists because without it, the entire spousal clubbing regime could be defeated by the simple expedient of routing transfers through a friend's spouse rather than one's own.

Question 4

Mr. and Mrs. Nair have twin minor children. Child A earns ₹80,000 from a fixed deposit gifted by a grandparent. Child B, a talented young musician, earns ₹1,50,000 performing at concerts through her own skill. Mr. Nair's total income before any clubbing is ₹18,00,000; Mrs. Nair's is ₹22,00,000. Compute the clubbing consequence for each child's income, including the exemption available.

Accepted Answer

Child A's income requires clubbing analysis while Child B's does not, because the two children's income arises from fundamentally different sources. Section 64(1A) clubs all income of a minor child with the income of the parent whose total income, computed before including the minor's income, is higher, subject to specified exceptions including income arising to the minor from his or her own manual work or from activity involving application of his or her own skill, talent or specialised knowledge and experience. Child B's concert earnings of 1,50,000 fall squarely within that exception, being income generated through her own musical skill and talent, and are therefore not clubbed with either parent at all; they are assessed, if at all, in the minor's own hands under the ordinary provisions applicable to a minor's independently earned income. Child A's fixed deposit interest of 80,000 does not fall within any exception, since it arises from an asset gifted by a grandparent rather than from the minor's own effort or skill, so it is clubbed under the general rule. Comparing the parents' total income before clubbing, Mrs. Nair's 22,00,000 exceeds Mr. Nair's 18,00,000, so Child A's income is clubbed with Mrs. Nair. Against this, the Act allows an exemption in computing the parent's total income of a specified statutory amount per minor child whose income is clubbed, or the actual income clubbed if lower; assuming the statutory per-child exemption is 1,500, Mrs. Nair may claim the lower of 80,000 and 1,500, that is 1,500, as exempt, so the net addition to her total income from clubbing Child A's income is 80,000 less 1,500, that is 78,500.

Question 5

Mr. Oberoi has a loss from house property of ₹3,50,000 for the year, and income from salary of ₹9,00,000 and business income of ₹1,00,000. Compute the set-off for the current year and the amount, if any, carried forward.

Accepted Answer

The set-off of house property loss against income under other heads in the current year is capped at 2,00,000, regardless of the actual size of the loss or the amount of other-head income available to absorb it. Mr. Oberoi's house property loss of 3,50,000 can therefore be set off against his salary and business income only up to 2,00,000 for the current year; the natural order, though the Act does not mandate a specific sequence among other heads for this purpose, would typically absorb it against the largest available income, salary of 9,00,000, so 2,00,000 of the house property loss is set off against salary income, leaving salary taxable at 9,00,000 less 2,00,000, that is 7,00,000, and business income remains fully taxable at 1,00,000 since the cap was already exhausted against salary alone. The balance of the house property loss, 3,50,000 less 2,00,000, that is 1,50,000, cannot be absorbed in the current year because of the cap, and must be carried forward. On carry-forward, house property loss may be carried forward for 8 assessment years, but critically only for set-off against house property income in those later years, not against any other head; the cross-head flexibility that exists in the current year, subject to the cap, disappears entirely once the loss is carried forward, and the unabsorbed 1,50,000 will remain unrelieved until Mr. Oberoi has sufficient house property income in a future year within the 8-year window to absorb it.

Question 6

Mr. Pillai's business incurs a loss of ₹6,00,000 in a previous year, and he files his return three months after the section 139(1) due date. Separately, his house property loss of ₹1,00,000 for the same year also cannot be absorbed and needs to be carried forward. Advise on whether each loss may be carried forward, explaining the differing conditions.

Accepted Answer

The business loss cannot be carried forward on these facts, but the house property loss can, and the difference turns on a filing condition that applies to one but not the other. Ordinary business loss under section 72 may be carried forward for 8 assessment years, to be set off only against business income in those years, but carry-forward is conditional on the return of income having been filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1); a return filed three months late fails this condition, and the business loss of 6,00,000, being unable to be carried forward, is simply lost for future set-off, although it remains available for set-off against other eligible income in the current year itself if such income exists, since the due-date condition governs carry-forward specifically and not the current year's set-off. House property loss, by contrast, may be carried forward for 8 assessment years for set-off against house property income in those years without any requirement that the return be filed by the due date; late filing does not disqualify this particular carry-forward. Mr. Pillai's house property loss of 1,00,000 is therefore validly carried forward despite the same late filing that defeated his business loss carry-forward. This asymmetry is a frequently tested point precisely because it runs against the natural assumption that a single filing deadline governs all carry-forwards uniformly; in fact the due-date condition is loss-category specific, and house property loss is a notable and examinable exception to the general rule.

Question 7

Explain the three respects in which unabsorbed depreciation is treated more favourably than an ordinary carried-forward business loss, and state the order of set-off where current depreciation, brought-forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation all compete for the same year's business income.

Accepted Answer

Unabsorbed depreciation stands apart from every other carried-forward loss category on three distinct counts. First, on time limit: while an ordinary non-speculative business loss can be carried forward for only 8 assessment years, unabsorbed depreciation carries forward indefinitely, with no time limit at all, and can in principle be set off decades after it first arose. Second, on the heads against which it may be set off: an ordinary business loss carried forward may be set off only against business income in the later year, whereas unabsorbed depreciation may be set off against income under any head whatsoever in a later year, giving it a materially broader absorption capacity. Third, on the filing condition: carry-forward of an ordinary business loss requires the return for the loss year to have been filed within the section 139(1) due date, whereas unabsorbed depreciation carries forward regardless of whether the return was filed on time. These three distinctions together make unabsorbed depreciation the most favourably treated category of carried-forward relief in the Act. On the order of set-off, where current year depreciation, brought-forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years all compete for the same business income in a later year, the sequence is: current year depreciation is set off first, then brought-forward business loss, and finally unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years. The logic behind this order is that brought-forward business loss carries a limited 8-year window and could be permanently lost if not used while that window remains open, whereas unabsorbed depreciation never expires and can safely be left to a later year without loss of relief; using the time-limited relief first, and the indefinitely available relief last, is the position the Act itself adopts to avoid wasting a scarce, expiring benefit in favour of one that will keep.

Question 8

Mrs. Qureshi's Gross Total Income for the year is ₹4,20,000. She has made investments and payments qualifying for Chapter VI-A deductions totalling ₹4,80,000 across various sections. Advise on the deduction actually available, and explain the general constraint that governs the answer.

Accepted Answer

The deduction actually available cannot exceed 4,20,000, notwithstanding that Mrs. Qureshi's qualifying investments and payments total 4,80,000, because a general constraint running across virtually every section in Chapter VI-A provides that the aggregate of all Chapter VI-A deductions cannot exceed Gross Total Income; a deduction under this Chapter cannot create or enlarge a loss. So even though 4,80,000 of qualifying expenditure has genuinely been incurred and would, taken alone, satisfy the conditions of the individual sections under which it is claimed, only 4,20,000 of it can actually be deducted, since deducting the full 4,80,000 against Gross Total Income of only 4,20,000 would produce a negative Total Income, which Chapter VI-A deductions are not permitted to create. The excess of 60,000 is simply lost; unlike certain business losses, there is no carry-forward mechanism for an unabsorbed Chapter VI-A deduction that could not be used because Gross Total Income was insufficient in the year it was claimed. This constraint is a general overriding rule sitting above the specific ceilings within each individual section, such as the 80CCE umbrella limit on 80C, 80CCC and 80CCD(1) combined, or the differentiated 80D limits for self and parents; a candidate must apply both layers, first computing what each section independently permits, and then checking that the resulting aggregate does not exceed Gross Total Income before arriving at Total Income.

Question 9

Distinguish section 80TTA from section 80TTB, stating who may claim each and on what kind of interest income.

Accepted Answer

Both sections grant a deduction for interest income under the head Other Sources, but they are mutually exclusive alternatives distinguished by the age of the assessee and the scope of interest covered. Section 80TTA permits a deduction for interest on deposits in a savings bank account, up to a specified limit, and is available to any individual or Hindu undivided family assessee who is not a senior citizen; it is confined specifically to savings account interest and does not extend to interest on fixed or term deposits. Section 80TTB is available specifically to a senior citizen and, in place of 80TTA, permits a deduction for interest on deposits generally, covering both savings account interest and interest on fixed or time deposits, up to a higher specified limit than the ordinary 80TTA ceiling. A senior citizen claims only 80TTB and not 80TTA, since 80TTB is expressly framed as available in place of 80TTA for that category of assessee, and the two are not cumulative; a non-senior-citizen assessee, conversely, has access only to 80TTA and cannot claim the more generous 80TTB regardless of the composition of their deposit interest. The distinction reflects a policy choice to give retired individuals, who commonly rely more heavily on fixed deposit interest as a source of income in the absence of salary, a broader and more generous relief than is available to a working-age depositor.

Question 10

Mr. Rathore takes an education loan for his daughter's postgraduate studies abroad. He pays interest of ₹2,80,000 in the current year, being the fifth year since he started repaying interest on the loan. State whether the deduction is available, its extent, and the two features that make section 80E unusual among Chapter VI-A deductions.

Accepted Answer

The deduction is available in full, since section 80E permits a deduction for interest on a loan taken for the higher education of the assessee himself, his spouse, his children, or a student for whom the assessee is the legal guardian, and a daughter pursuing postgraduate studies squarely qualifies. Two features make this section unusual relative to most of Chapter VI-A. First, there is no monetary ceiling on the amount of interest deductible: unlike section 80C's investment ceiling or section 80D's premium limits, the entire interest actually paid during the year is deductible however large it is, so the full 2,80,000 is available as a deduction for the current year with no cap to check. Second, the deduction is time-limited by duration rather than by amount: it is available for a maximum of 8 years, or until the interest is fully repaid, whichever occurs earlier, counted from the year repayment of interest begins. This is the fifth year of interest repayment, within the 8-year window, so the deduction remains available; it will continue to be available for up to three further years, or until the loan's interest is fully repaid, whichever comes first, after which no further deduction under section 80E will be available even if some interest liability technically remains outstanding beyond the 8-year window.

Question 11

Mr. Pandey transfers shares, without adequate consideration, to a trust under which the dividend income is to be accumulated for 5 years and then paid entirely to his wife. State the tax treatment, and the provision that governs an indirect benefit routed through a third party.

Accepted Answer

The dividend income, to the extent it is for the deferred benefit of Mr. Pandey's wife, is clubbed with his own income notwithstanding that it is routed through a trust rather than transferred to her directly. Sections 64(1)(vii) and (viii) address precisely this kind of indirect arrangement: where an individual transfers an asset, otherwise than for adequate consideration, to any person or association of persons, for the immediate or deferred benefit of his or her spouse, income from that asset to the extent it benefits the spouse is clubbed in the transferor's income. The provision expressly covers both immediate and deferred benefit, so the fact that the trust is structured to accumulate the dividend for 5 years before eventual payment to Mrs. Pandey does not take the arrangement outside the provision; deferred benefit is treated no differently from immediate benefit for clubbing purposes. This closes what would otherwise be an obvious avoidance route: without such a provision, an individual could defeat the spousal clubbing rules simply by transferring assets to an intermediate trust or third party rather than directly to the spouse, while the trust's terms ensure the spouse is the ultimate and intended beneficiary of the income all along; the Act looks through the intermediate vehicle to the real destination of the economic benefit.

Question 12

Mrs. Qadir's minor son earns rental income from a house property transferred to him by a grandparent. This income is clubbed with Mrs. Qadir. Explain how the clubbed income is characterised for computational purposes, and why this matters practically.

Accepted Answer

Once income is clubbed, it retains its original character for computational purposes within the clubbing parent's total income, rather than being treated as a generic addition of a lump sum. Here the minor's income is rental income from a house property, so when it is clubbed with Mrs. Qadir under section 64(1A), assuming she is the parent with the higher pre-clubbing total income, it continues to be computed as house property income, meaning it is entitled to the ordinary Gross Annual Value computation and the two section 24 deductions, the 30% standard deduction and interest on borrowed capital if any loan is attached to the property, rather than simply being added to her total income as an undifferentiated figure. This matters practically because the character of the income determines which computational rules, deductions and set-off possibilities apply to it: house property income can be set off against other heads in the current year up to the 2,00,000 cap discussed elsewhere in this chapter, and if it happens to be negative after deductions, it becomes a loss subject to the same carry-forward rules as any other house property loss, all of which depends on recognising and preserving its character as house property income within Mrs. Qadir's total income rather than treating the clubbing provision as converting it into some generic, characterless addition.

Question 13

Mr. Rastogi has a loss from speculative transactions in shares of ₹2,00,000 and a profit from his ordinary trading business (non-speculative) of ₹5,00,000 in the same year. Advise on whether the speculation loss can be set off against the business profit, and state the rule governing carry-forward if it cannot be fully absorbed.

Accepted Answer

The speculation loss of 2,00,000 cannot be set off against the non-speculative business profit of 5,00,000 in the current year at all. A specific restriction provides that loss from a speculation business can be set off only against profit from another speculation business, whether in the same year or on carry-forward, and never against non-speculative business income, however closely related the two activities might otherwise seem within the assessee's overall trading operations. Since Mr. Rastogi's facts do not disclose any speculative income against which the 2,00,000 speculation loss could be absorbed in the current year, none of it is set off, and his non-speculative business profit of 5,00,000 remains fully taxable without any reduction from the speculation loss. The unabsorbed speculation loss is carried forward for 4 assessment years, a materially shorter window than the 8-year period available for ordinary business loss, and in each of those carried-forward years it may again be set off only against speculation business income, never against ordinary business income even if the assessee has none of the former and abundant amounts of the latter. This narrow restriction reflects a policy distinction the Act draws between speculative trading, treated as a distinct and somewhat disfavoured category of activity, and ordinary business, with losses from the former kept ring-fenced from the latter's profits throughout both current-year set-off and carry-forward.

Question 14

Mr. Sane, aged 45, pays health insurance premium of ₹22,000 for himself and his family, and separately ₹35,000 for his parents, both of whom are senior citizens. Compute his deduction under section 80D, stating the separate limits that apply.

Accepted Answer

Section 80D provides separate, independently applicable limits for premium paid for self and family on one hand, and for parents on the other, and the limits are further enhanced where the person insured is a senior citizen. For premium paid on behalf of self, spouse and dependent children, the ordinary ceiling applicable to a non-senior-citizen assessee, here Mr. Sane at age 45, is a specified amount, commonly 25,000; his premium of 22,000 for himself and his family falls within that ceiling and is deductible in full. For premium paid on behalf of parents, a separate and independent ceiling applies, and it is enhanced where the parents insured are senior citizens, commonly to 50,000 rather than the ordinary 25,000 figure; his premium of 35,000 for his senior citizen parents falls within that enhanced ceiling and is likewise deductible in full. The two limits operate independently rather than as a single combined ceiling, meaning Mr. Sane's total deduction under section 80D is the sum of both, 22,000 plus 35,000, that is 57,000, rather than being capped at a single lower figure that would apply if the self-and-family and the parents' premiums were required to compete for one shared ceiling. This structure deliberately encourages taxpayers to insure elderly parents by giving that specific category of premium its own generous, higher, and separately available limit.

Question 15

In a previous year Mr. Trivedi has: business income (non-speculative) of ₹4,00,000; a brought-forward business loss of ₹6,00,000 from two years earlier (return filed on time then); house property loss of ₹1,50,000 for the current year; and long-term capital gain of ₹3,00,000. Compute his position after set-off, applying the correct sequence and restrictions.

Accepted Answer

Work through inter-source set-off first, then inter-head, applying every specific restriction. Within the same head, there is no inter-source complication on these facts, since each figure already belongs to a distinct head or type. First, current business income of 4,00,000 is available, and against it the brought-forward business loss of 6,00,000 is set off, since brought-forward business loss can be set off only against business income, which is exactly what is available here; the loss fully absorbs the current business income, reducing it to nil, and leaves an unabsorbed balance of 6,00,000 less 4,00,000, that is 2,00,000, which continues to be carried forward, subject to the remaining years of its original 8-year window from when it first arose two years earlier, so 6 years of that window remain. Second, the house property loss of 1,50,000 for the current year can be set off against income under other heads in the current year, subject to the 2,00,000 cap; since 1,50,000 is within that cap, the full amount may be set off against another head's income. Long-term capital gain of 3,00,000 is available, and setting the house property loss off against it, since business income has already been reduced to nil and cannot absorb anything further, leaves net long-term capital gain of 3,00,000 less 1,50,000, that is 1,50,000, chargeable for the year. Final position for the year: business income nil, with 2,00,000 of business loss carried forward; house property loss fully absorbed, nothing carried forward; and net taxable long-term capital gain of 1,50,000.

Practice — Clubbing, Set-Off and Deductions from Gross Total Income

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities