9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred the case and stated the following question to this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the deletion of the share income of Rs. 24,925 in the assessment year 1972-73 and of Rs. 20,739 in the assessment year 1975-76 from the individual assessments of the assessee in these two years ?" Shri Jagdish Chand was a partn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on Shri Jagdish Chand, in respect of the share income, in his capacity as an individual. Appeals were filed by the assessee and the same were allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Income-tax Officer was directed to exclude the share income from the income of the assessee as an individual. In arriving at this conclusion, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner followed an earlier de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 11 to 13 of 1982, came to the conclusion that the share of income was rightly directed to be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. Earlier, in the case of assessee, Jagdish Chand himself, on September 24, 1987, in Income-tax References Nos. 57 to 62 Of 1980, CIT v. Jagdish Chand Khanna, another Division Bench of this court had come to the similar conclusion and had held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
