@article{2023:rao:thinking_a,
title = {Thinking about Agency in the Formation of Tax Units: Commentary on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indira Balakrishna, AIR 1960 SC 1172},
year = {2023},
note = {Since income tax is levied on a progressive basis (depending on the
income of each taxpayer), how we define the taxpayer or “tax unit”
is of critical importance. In the 1960 ruling of Commissioner of
Income Tax v. Indira Balakrishna, the Supreme Court was required to
interpret and define a tax unit known as an ‘Association of
Persons’ (AOP) which had no statutory definition under income tax
law. In doing so, it made certain gender-based assumptions regarding
the nature of economic activity taking place within the household. In
the (rewritten) feminist dissent, Maithreyi Mulupuru challenges these
gendered assumptions by adopting a different approach to the
definition of an AOP. This article is a comment on the feminist
dissent. I argue that the rewritten judgment recognizes the agency of
the taxpayers by recognizing that economic intent sufficient to
constitute an AOP can exist, not just in the taxpayers ‘coming
together’ but also in them ‘staying together.’ In doing so, the
dissent considers the female taxpayers not merely as passive
recipients of property but as active agents exercising volition over
their economic affairs. By a deeper engagement with, and a more
contextual analysis of the volition question, both in the articulation
and application of the AOP definition, Mulupuru’s dissent narrows
the difference between the treatment of male co-heirs (taxable by
virtue of their status as a HUF) and female co-heirs (taxable only
upon specified kinds of action, as an AOP). At a broader level, the
rewritten dissent demonstrates how an engagement with feminist methods
is of value and vital even in seemingly neutral areas such as tax law.},
journal = {VRÜ Verfassung und Recht in Übersee},
pages = {76--88},
author = {Rao, Shreya},
volume = {56},
number = {1}
}