9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted to the benefits of a partnership firm Ganeshlal Gulabchand. During the relevant accounting year, the share of this minor came to Rs. 19,476 which the ITO added in the income of the assessee. 3. On appeal, it was argued before the AAC that in the first instance Shri Bajranglal, father of the minor, was a partner in his capacity as the karta of the HUF. He died on 5-12-1965 and his son S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court---CIT v. Kalu Babu Lal Chand [1959] 37 ITR 123 and Tolaram Bijoy Kumar v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 750. The AAC was of the opinion that since Shri Bajranglal was a partner of the firm Ganeshlal Gulabchand by virtue of capital received on partition of the HUF, the ITO was not justified in including the share income in the said firm in the assessment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e seriously disputed but before the same can be invoked, it has to be shown that the karta of the family was a partner of the firm in his capacity as such. Here, in the present case, Bajranglal, husband of the assessee, had expired on 5-12-1965. Sanjay Kumar, the son of the assessee, was a minor at the time of the relevant assessment. The partnership deed, dated 1-1-1966, showed that Sanjay Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssolve the firm. The case of such a minor would squarely fall under clause (iii) of section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, according to which, in computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly to a minor child of such individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm. If anybody has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
