V.V.R.N.M. Subbayya Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Supreme Court of India | AIR 1951 101 | Jurisdiction: India
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: head and brain; British India; Income Tax Act 1922; domicile vs residence
CASE_TITLE: V.V.R.N.M. Subbayya Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax • PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-02 • AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi • LOCATION: India
Quick Summary
The case explains how to decide where a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is resident for tax. The Court said: look for the head and brain—the real control and direction of the HUF’s tax-relevant affairs. If control and management are wholly outside British India, the HUF is non-resident under Section 4A(b) of the 1922 Act.
Issues
- Was the assessee HUF a resident in British India under Section 4A(b)?
Rules
- Control & Management Test: Residence of a HUF depends on where its control and management actually function.
- Section 4A(b), 1922: A HUF (or firm/AOP) resides in British India unless its control and management are wholly outside British India.
Facts (Timeline)
Optional Illustration
Residence Abroad: The Karta lived in Ceylon with his wife and child, and carried on business there.
Assets in India: He owned house property and other assets in India.
Visit to India: During the relevant year, he came to India for family litigation and stayed for 101 days.
Business Steps: He started two partnership firms in India and stayed some time after the start.
Arguments
Appellant (Assessee HUF)
- Real control and management were in Ceylon.
- Indian presence and partnerships were temporary/ancillary.
- So, the HUF should be treated as non-resident.
Respondent (Revenue)
- Activities in India showed a seat of power within British India.
- Starting firms and staying for 101 days pointed to residence.
Judgment
Optional Illustration
- Control & Management = Head and Brain: It means the controlling and directing power and must function in a place with some permanence.
- “Affairs” are tax-relevant: Only those affairs that matter for the Income Tax Act are counted.
- “Wholly” matters: The word allows the seat of control to be split. For non-residence, the whole control must be outside British India.
Ratio Decidendi
A HUF is resident where its real control and management operate. Temporary visits or scattered actions do not decide residence. To claim non-resident, the control and management must be wholly outside British India.
Why It Matters
- Guides how to judge a HUF’s residential status for tax.
- Separates place of control from mere physical presence.
- Still useful when reading later laws using the control-and-management idea.
Key Takeaways
- Head & Brain Test: Find where real decisions are made.
- Permanence: Control must operate with stability, not momentary acts.
- Wholly Outside: To be non-resident, all control must be outside British India.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “Head Here? Resident Here.”
- Locate Head: Where are key tax affairs directed?
- Check Permanence: Is the control stable at that spot?
- Apply 4A(b): Only if control is wholly outside India → non-resident.
IRAC Outline
Issue: Whether the HUF was resident in British India under Section 4A(b).
Rule: Residence follows the place where control and management of tax-relevant affairs function; non-residence needs control wholly outside India.
Application: Karta’s India stay and partnerships were not enough if the head and brain were outside; look for stable control location.
Conclusion: Residence turns on the real seat of control; split or temporary activity does not by itself decide it.
Glossary
- HUF
- Hindu Undivided Family, a joint family unit recognized for tax.
- Karta
- The person who manages the HUF’s affairs.
- Control & Management
- The real directing power—policy and key decisions.
- Residence (Tax)
- Where a person/entity is treated as resident for taxing income.
FAQs
Share
Related Post
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now