9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (10) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1954-55, the corresponding accounting year being the year ended September 30, 1953. Shri M.D. Dhanwatey was a partner in the partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works. The share capital of Shri M.D. Dhanwatey was entirely contributed by the assessee Hindu undivided family. The rights of the partners were governed at the relevant time by a partnership agreement dated April 1, 1951. According to the agreement the partnership was of lithography and art printing and was carried on by means of a press under the name and style of Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works . Clause (4) of the partnership deed enumerated various capital contributions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived by Shri M.D. Dhanwatey, the karta of the assessee-family was received by him in his individual capacity and that it was not taxable in the hands of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle B , Nagpur, by his assessment order dated May 28, 1955, negatived the contention of the assessee. The assessee took the matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the appeal was dismissed. The assessee preferred a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which rejected the contention of the assessee that the amount of ₹ 7,500 was earned by Shri M.D. Dhanwatey in his individual capacity and that it should not have been included in the taxable income of the assessee. As directed by the High Court, the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay. For the reasons elaborately set out in that case we hold that the decision of the question of law in the present case is governed by the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kalu Babu Lai Chand [1959] 37 ITR 123, and in Mathura Prasad v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] ITR 428 (SC). We are accordingly of the opinion that the question referred to the High Court was rightly answered against the assessee and this appeal must be dismissed with costs. Hegde, J.-I agree with the conclusion reached by my learned brothers. For the reasons stated in my judgment in Civil Appeals 1372 and 1373 of 1966, V.D. Dhanwatey's case (supra). I am unable to subscribe to the observation in the majority judgment that the materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
