only point involved in this appeal pertains to applicability of provisions of section 64(1)(iii) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (' Act ') in respect of interest income earned by minors. 2. assessee is individual. assessment year is 1976-77 and relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1976. 3. assessee's two minor sons, Udayan and Viren, were admitted to benefits of partnership of two firms, namely Mukund & Bros. and Ambica Cut Piece Store. His minor daughter Chhava was admitted to benefits of partnership of Mukund & Bros. 4. In his return of income assessee had shown share of profit of minors from aforesaid firms in view of provisions of section 64(1)(iii). It may be mentioned that minors were also given interest on capital standing in their names which assessee had not shown in his return on ground that provisions of that section are not attracted. income-tax authorities, however, negatived assessee's stand and came to conclusion that even in respect of interest earned by minors provisions of section 64(1)(iii) are attracted. 5. Being aggrieved by order of AAC, assessee has come up in appeal before Tribunal. learned counsel for assessee vehemently argued that income-tax authorities were not justified in including interest earned by minors in total income of assessee by invoking provisions of section 64(1)(iii). In this connection he placed before us copies of accounts of minors in said two firms at well as deeds of partnership of said two firms with view to impress upon us that capital standing in names of minors were nothing but deposits to which provisions of that section are not applicable. He also submitted that since minors were not required to bring in capital as condition to be admitted to benefits of partnership, income-tax authorities were not justified in holding that even in respect of interest earned by them provisions of section 64(1)(iii) are attracted. He also placed before us copy of order of Tribunal in case of Virchand Dalichand [IT Appeal No. 1389 (Ahd.) of 1979, dated 7-1-1981] wherein similar contentions raised were accepted by Tribunal. He therefore, urged that interest income earned by minors from said two firms which was included in total income of assessee should be deleted. In support of his submissions learned counsel for assessee relied on decision in cases of S. Srinivasan v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 273 (SC) and CIT v. Smt. Triveni Devi [1971] 81 ITR 511 (All.). learned representative for department, on other hand, kly relied on orders of income-tax authorities and justified their action. He also invited our attention to copies of accounts of minors with view to impress upon us that income-tax authorities have rightly included interest income of minors in total income of assessee. 6. We have carefully considered rival submissions of parties and w e do not find any merits in stand taken on behalf of assessee. relevant provisions of Act applicable in instant case read as under: " 64(1). In computing total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly--- (iii) to minor child of such individual from admission of minor to benefits of partnership in firm;" On plain reading of aforesaid provisions, we have no doubt in our mind that all and any income earned by minor from firm in which his has been admitted to benefits of partnership would be includible in total income of his parent(s). It appears to us that in number of cases assessees are taking stand that as far as interest earned by minors is concerned, provisions of section 64(1)(iii) are not attracted. However, they have failed to notice amendment brought in clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 64 with effect from 1-4-1976. Prior to amendment assessees were taking stand which was accepted by High Courts that if minor is not bringing in any capital but has deposit simpliciter in firm in which he was admitted to benefits of partnership, interest earned thereon could not be clubbed with income of his parent(s) if his parent(s) is also partner in said firm, However, with effect from 1-4-1976 clause (iii) has been substituted as mentioned above which clearly shows that any income earned by minor from firm in which he has been admitted to benefits of partnership would be includible in hands of his parent(s) irrespective of fact that such parent(s) is also partner of said firm or not. According to us, after amendment made with effect from 1-4- 1976 provisions of clause (iii) would be applicable irrespective of whether assessee's minor children are allowed share in firm without any contribution on their part to capital or assets of firm or whether they bring their own capital or become members of firm in their own right. Again, in our view, provisions of clause (iii) are absolute and unqualified in terms and not subject to any exception or restrictions. In this view of matter we have no hesitation in upholding action of income-tax authorities in including interest earned by minors in total income of assessee by invoking provisions of section 64(1)(iii). 7. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** BIPINCHANDRA NAVNITLAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICER