1976 (11) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-II, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee's share in the partnership firm of M/s. Erode Service constit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng Rs. 50,000. This sum of Rs 50,000 came out of Rs. 51,000 which the assessee took from the estate of his deceased father. It is with reference to these facts that the question arose whether the assessee's share of the loss in M/s. Erode Service should be treated as the assessee's individual loss or the loss of the Hindu undivided family of which the assessee was the karta. The Tribunal held that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the said sum of Rs. 50,000 should be treated as an amount belonging to the joint family of himself and his five sons and not belonging to him absolutely. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and in particular section 8 thereof, have not changed this position of the Hindu law. However, the Allahabad High Court has held in Commissioner of Income-tax v. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X