9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), for adjudication by this court : "'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission paid by the assessee-firm to Sri Rasiklal P. Rathor (individual) was rightly disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The cases are disposed of by this common judgment. According to the Revenue, in terms of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee in this judgment. The assessee questioned the legality of the addition. The assessee's stand was that payment was made to Sri Rasiklal P. Rathor in his individual capacity, while his Hindu undivided family was the partner and, therefore, section 40(b) had no application. A distinction was made that Rasiklal P. Rathor was a different person while representing his Hindu undivided family fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and Co. v, CIT [1980] 121 ITR 911 (Delhi), Dwarkadas Rameshwar Goenka v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 397 (Mad), Sanghi Motors v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 359 (Delhi), Chandmul Rajgarhia v. CIT [1987] 164 ITR 486 (Patna), CIT v. Hari Nath and Co. [1987] 168 ITR 440 (All) and CIT v. Nitro Phosphetic Fertilizer [1988] 174 ITR 269 (All) [FB]. A contrary view has been expressed in the following cases : CIT v. Pan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this context, it may be necessary to refer to section 64(1) of the Act which permits clubbing of share income of the wife or minor child, as the case may be, with that of a male partner, if they are co-partners in the same partnership firm. Clubbing cannot be done if the said male partner is partner in his capacity as karta of a Hindu undivided family. As defined in section 2(31) of the Act, per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
