9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o joint family property and consequently upholding the exclusion of 10 per cent. share in the firm from his assessment ? " This reference relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee, an individual, was a partner in the firm of Tulsidas Khimji (for short, " the said firm ") which was a registered firm under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee and his brother one Shantu are the sons of the late Shri Karsondas, who died on February 17, 1972, and was having 16 per cent. share in the said firm. After the death of the said Karsondas, a new partnership deed was executed on May 25, 1972, by the then parties in the said firm for carrying on business thereof and the assessee was a partner therein having a share in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the assessee's claim for deduction of the amount payable to " Karsondas Tulsidas HUF ", the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that no deduction whatsoever was permissible. The appeal of the assessee was thus partly allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, both the assessee and the Income-tax Officer preferred appeals to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. According to the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the deduction of 10 per cent. out of the said 32 per cent. share in the profits received by the assessee from the said firm as payable to the said " Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se drawn up for the purpose of this reference, it is stated as under : " A new partnership deed was drawn up on May 25, 1972, in the case of the firm which showed that the assessee, Shri Moolsingh, and Shri Shantu were partners along with three others with shares as under : Moolsingh Karsondas 32 per cent. Shantu Karsondas 24 per cent." There is nothing on record to show either in the statement of case filed or otherwise that the said larger Hindu undivided family, viz., the said " Karsondas Tulsidas HUF ", and/or the said smaller Hindu undivided family, viz., the said " Moolsingh Karsondas HUF ", had any share in the profits of the said firm constituted under the said deed of partnership dated May 25, 1972. After reconstitution of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the assessee's income in the said reconstituted partnership under the said deed of partnership dated May 25, 1972, by overriding title by reason of the said declaration dated January 8, 1969, or otherwise. This, maximum, can be a case of application of income by the assessee after he derived it by reason of his partnership share in the profits of the business carried on in the said deed of partnership dated May 25, 1972. In our this view of the matter, we are supported by the decision of this Bench in the case of CIT v. Shri and Smt. Ganesh G. K. Azrenkar [1996] 217 ITR 148 (Bom) (Income-tax Reference No. 256 of 1983, decided on November 11, 1994). The question, therefore, is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
