1983 (2) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... status of individual. The amount was made up of Rs. 16,826 being the share of assessee's daughter-in-law. Smt. Sunita Aggarwal from the firm M/s Muni Lal Brij Mohan, Jullundur and Rs. 13,060 share of assessee's second daughter-in-law, Smt. Kamlesh Rani from M/s Kumsun Traders, Ludhiana. The ITO had clubbed both these items of income belonging to the assessee's two daughter-in-law under s. 64(1)(v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... them by their father-in-law and hence s. 64(1)(vi) was clearly applicable. The line of reasoning of the revenue is clearly contrary to what is held by the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Bhai Parekh (1970) 77 ITR 27 (SC), which decision has been explained by the Calcutta High Court in Prahlad Rai Aggarwal vs. CIT (1970) 92 ITR 130. The AAC has referred to both the judgements and, in our opinion .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X