9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : "(1) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal has been in error in law in holding that there is no legal bar on the 'karta' of a Hindu undivided family to enter into a partnership with a co-parcener of his own family ? (2) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal has been in error in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rightly reversed the Income-tax Officer's order cancelling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the assessment year 1965-66. In the meanwhile, the Income-tax Officer, dealing with the partial partition case of the Hindu undivided family of Brij Bhushan Lal, which took place in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1971-72, after recording that there was no partition in the family, held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt as expressed in Ratanchand Darbarilal v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 720. It is also pertinent to note that on the facts, there is a clear finding recorded by the Tribunal that Suresh Kumar, one of the partners of the firm, was a genuine partner and that he contributed his labour and skill to it. Such being the position, both in law and in facts, question No. (1) has clearly to be answered in the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
