( 1 ) TILL death both us part the oath uttered at the time of solemnization of marriage may have to be to altered into till the income tax authorities both us part by the medicos who marry and intend to carry on their professional activities in partnership. That cannot be helped if the interpretation placed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the provision popularly known as the clubbing provision embodied in section 64 (1) (i) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 is untenable as is canvassed by the Revenue. The said provision speaks as under :"64 (1) In computing the total income of any individual there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly. (J) to the spouse of such individual from the membership of the spouse in a firm carrying on a business in which such individual is a partner;in essence it provides that when the husband and the wife are members of the very same partnership firm carrying on a business the income of the two is to be clubbed together. In so far as the income arising directly or indirectly from the business of the partnership is concerned such dubbing together would naturally result in a higher rate of tax being attracted having regard to the fact that income-tax at a higher rate is levied in regard to the slab of income which is in the higher bracket. The assessee is therefore interested in escaping the clutches of this provision. The revenue on the other hand would be anxious to call into aid this provision in case any question of inter- partition arises which would result in an assessee being in a position to successfully contend that the provision would not be attracted in his case. Such a question has arisen in the context of a partnership firm between two spouses who happen to be professionals. Each of them is a qualified medical practitioner (a doctor ). The husband and the wife team of doctors have formed a partnership and are carrying on their profes- sional activities in partnership. The activities inter alia consist of a running of a Nursing Home where the time under the treatment of the team of doctors are admitted as in door patients and the income from the Nursing Home also forms a part of the professional income of the part- nership firm. The assesses contend at the clubbing provision contained in sec. 64 (1) (i) would be attracted provided and only provided the basic pre-condition envisioned by the provision namely that the two spouses must be members of a partnership firm carrying on a business is satisfied. The expression carrying on a business has been placed under spotlight and it has been contended that when a doctor husband and a doctor wife carry on their profession in partnership it cannot be said that they are carrying on a business. If the contention is right the assesses must succeed. Otherwise the revenue would be justified in clubb- ing together their income. It appears that a similar question on similar facts has arisen in the cases of a number of doctor couples carrying on their profession in partnership. In the case of a couple from Godhra the question arose in three successive years viz. 1972-73 and 1973-74 and 1974 The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the contention of the assessee couple that the provision in question was not attracted because they were partners in a firm carrying on profession and not partners in a firm carrying on business. Thereupon three allied references have been made at the instance of the Revenue. In I. T. R. Nos. 193/78 and 113 we are concerned with the case of the doctor husband who has succeeded in respect of assessment for the aforesaid three years. In I. T. R. No. 154/78 we are concerned with the doctor wife who has also succeeded before the Tribunal. All these three references will be disposed of by this common judgment. We will also dispose of two Income-tax Applications (I. T. A: Nos. 158/81 and 159/81) pertaining to another doctor couple from Ahmedabad in respect of two successive ye