SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(Kar) 26

AHMED ALI KHAN, SOMNATH IYER
I. P. MUNAVALLI – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX MYSORE – Respondent


Advocates:
C.M.Desai, G.R.ETHIRAJULU NAIDU, S.R.RAJASEKHARAMURTHY

SOMNATH IYER, J.

( 1 ) THIS reference at the instance of the assessees is made by the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The father I. P. Munavalli and the son C. I. Munavalli are the assessees and the ass'essment year is 1963-64. The Hindu undivided family of which i. P. Munavalli was the karta, was carrying on a business in foodgrains and pulses and on November 9, 1961, according to the statement of the case submitted to us, the father and the son entered into an agreement of partnership under which the son became a wotking partner and the other partner was the joint family of which the father was the karta. The profits and losses had to be shared equally by the two partners.

( 2 ) WHEN the assessees made an application for registration of the firm under Section 185 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer refused registration on the ground that there was no partition between the members of the family, and there was no genuine partnership which came into being between the members of the family.

( 3 ) THE appellate assistant commissioner was of a different view. In his opinion, a partnership between the Hindu Joint-family represented by the




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top