9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's minor sons have been admitted to the benefit of three different partnership firms named M/s. Mangal Pd. Dalal, M/s. Arun Kumar Vijai Kumar and M/s. Mehrotra Textiles. The ITO while completing the assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration by taking recourse to s. 64(iii) of the Act as it came into force w.e.f. the year under consideration, added the following amounts totalling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total income of the assessee the amounts of the interest so earned by the minors on their said capital with the firms. This proposed action by the ITO was opposed by the assessee, except to the extent that the determined share of the minor in the firm of M/s. Mangal Pd. Dalal of Rs. 28,628 and not Rs. 21,471 taken by the ITO in the assessment of the assessee. The said objection did not prevail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income of the assessee was not warranted by s. 64(iii) of the Act. This stand of the assessee was negatived by the AAC by relying on the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Srinivasan vs. CIT, Madras (1967) 63 ITR 273 (SC) and of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gyan Chand (1973) 87 ITR 288 (P H) and of the Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Ganeshhilal (1973) 88 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are not in dispute. Four minor sons of the assessee have been admitted to the benefits of the aforesaid three firms. The capital balances of those minors in each of the said firms represent nothing but the accumulated share of profits of the minors earned from these firms. On these facts, we agree with the AAC that s. 64(1)(iii) is wide enough for the clubbing to the income of the assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
