1982 (4) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... referred by the Tribunal are as follows: " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in observing that as a result of partial partition in an HUF the share income from the firm constituted by the erstwhile members of the HUF will be the income of the HUF consisting of the karta and his wife and not the income of an individual ? .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... income of his two minor sons from the partnership was included in the assessment under s. 64 of the Act. In the assessment year 1970-71, the return was originally filed in the status of an individual. Later on, the return was revised and the status was shown as HUF on the ground that after partial partition the assessee and his wife constituted an HUF. In the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 983] 142 ITR 843 (MP) [FB]; Ramratan v. CED [1983] 142 ITR 863 (MP) (FBI and CIT v. Krishna Kumar [1983] 143 ITR 462 (MP) [FB]). In the instant case, the wife was also allotted share in the partial partition. We are only concerned with the income from the property which was the subject-matter of partial partition and which was invested in the partnership. It is impossible to hold that the assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X