9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (10) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appealed. 2. The contention before the AAC was that the said share of profit belonged to the karta of the assessee family viz. Shri Khacheru Mal, as an individual, and that the ITO had erred in including the same in the assessment of the assessee family. (The ITO s reason for the action he took seems to be : Khacheru Mal had become a partner in the said firm with the help of a loan from the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim made; and that in the assessee s case, for the next assessment year, it was held in first appeal that the share income from the said firm was correctly includible in the hands of the individual, Khacheru Mal. In these circumstances, the AAC deleted the disputed inclusion. The Revenue is in appeal. 3. Shri Lal, appearing for the Department, submits that the loan taken by Khacheru Mal and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount in the books of the said firm Khacheru Mal fully paid back the loan of Rs. 41,853 to the assessee family. As per cl. 9 of the partnership deed dt.16th Dec., 1970of the said firm it was clearly the Khacheru Mal had jointed the partnership in his individual capacity. It was also clarified by Shri Monga that there was no clause in the partnership deed requiring contribution of capital to any p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
