9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion are 1971-72 and 1972-73 relating to all the assessees, five in number. The hearing of these cases was awaiting the disposal of Tax Case No. 3 of 1975 [CIT v. Atma Ram Budhia [1984] 146 ITR 240 (Pat)], which was referred to a Full Bench because the question referred in these cases and the earlier case is almost similar, namely, as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive assessees were described as working partners and were allowed salary under cl. 14 of the partnership deed. Each of the assessees received salary of Rs. 16,800 from the firm in each of the assessment years. The ITO included the aforesaid salary income along with the share income received by the smaller HUFs of the assessees. The assessees raised a dispute that the said income should not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal also, relying upon the case of Prem Nath v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 319 (SC), came to the same conclusion, namely, that it as far as the five HUFs of the five working partners were concerned, there was no detriment to the HUF nor is it a compensation made for the service rendered by the individual coparcener. The interest of the HUF remained intact and unaffected adversely. There is no distribution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficient connection between the investment of the joint family funds in acquiring the shares, and the payment of the remuneration to the karta, the remuneration paid to him was not earned by any detriment to the joint family assets and the amounts received by him were not assessable as the income of the HUF. Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia, appearing for the Department, in view of this authoritative decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
