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

1954 Supreme(Bom) 43

M.C.CHAGLA, S.R.TANDOLKAR
Bhogilal Laherchand – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City – Respondent


JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. The question that arises on this reference is a very simple one and not capable of much elaboration. The assessee started a partnership business along with his major son and he admitted to the benefit of this partnership his two minor sons. In the assessment year 1950-51 the share of the profit of each of the minors came to Rs. 1,05,077 and this amount was included in the income of the assessee under the provisions of Section 16(3)(a)(ii). Each of the minors also received interest in the sum of Rs. 43,210 on deposits which stood to their credit in the firm, and the question that we have to consider is whether the interest which the minors received could be included in the income of the assessee under the provisions of Section 16(3)(a)(ii).

2. Now, what Section 16(3)(a)(ii) requires is that a minor must be admitted to the benefits of the partnership in a firm of which the assessee is a partner and income must arise either directly or indirectly to the minor from his admission to such a partnership. Therefore there must be a connection between the income and the admission of the minor to the partnership. The connection need not be direct; it may even be indi









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