1985 (5) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... partition in the family on 19-10-1971. Subsequent to this partition, another partnership firm was formed in which the coparceners of the erstwhile family became the partners. The income of the firm was the share income from the three firms, earlier referred to in which Shri Manvi formerly represented the HUF but now represents the coparceners. The firm was also granted registration. The income of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y only. Therefore, in the ordinary course the share incomes from the three firms should have been assessed on M.S. Manvi in his individual status. What the individual does with the income after the receipt thereof is only an application of the income. But apparently the ITO did not assess the income on the individual in view of the diversion of the income by overriding title, i.e., under an agreem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to Shri Manvi exclusively but to all the coparceners. The coparceners for their own convenience decided to have the share income assessed in the hands of a firm and then got it distributed as partners of the second firm. The argument that the sub-partnership also has paid tax and, therefore, there is double taxation is not tenable. Having formed the sub-partnership, it is not possible to avoid pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X