1993 (2) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... years 1972-73 and 1973-74. The assessee, who is a Hindu individual, was a partner in the firm of Rasiklal D. Gandhi and Co. in his individual capacity, holding a 25 per cent. share in the partnership. On December 28, 1970, the assessee made a declaration that as on November 2, 19 70, he had thrown into the common pool of his Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and his four sons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nal held that the interest of a partner in a partnership, is an asset and there is nothing to prevent a coparcener from impressing such an asset with the character of the joint family property. From this finding, the following question has been referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n to a transferee in such a situation. This section is attracted if a partner assigns his share to an outsider without the consent of his partners during the existence of the partnership. In this situation, no immediate rights accrue to the assignee as against the other partners except that the assignee can ask for the share of profits of the firm coming to the transferor which may, from time to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X