JUDGMENT :

B.K. Mehta, J.

In this group of three references at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Baroda, the dispute relates to the attraction of section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purposes of clubbing the income of the minor sons admitted to the benefits of partnership, or for that malter, of the wife from the profits of the firm with the income of the father or the husband, as the case may be, where such father or husband is a partner in the same firm in his representative capacity. We, therefore, intend to dispose of this group of references by this common judgment, though the questions referred to us are not precisely identical.

2. The dispute is covered so far as this court is concerned by the decision in Dinubhai Ishvarlal Patel v. K.D. Dixit, ITO [1979] 11 8 ITR 122 (Guj), where the Division Bench has held that if one of the partners in a firm is a partner in a representative capacity for and on behalf of his joint family, the mere fact that his spouse is also a partner in the same firm or his minor children have been admitted to the benefits of that partnership firm would not attract section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making the income of