Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 260 1966 SLD 260 (1966) 61 ITR 30
Gujarat High Court
IT REFERENCE No. 22 OF 1960, OCTOBER 20, 21, 1964
SHELAT, C.J. AND BHAGWATI, J
S.P. Mehta and K.H. Kaji for the Applicant. J. M. Thakore, M. M. Thakore and M. G. Doshit for the
Respondent

F.Y. Khambhaty

v.

Commissioner of INCOME TAX

Law:

Section:

Section 6, read with section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 4A, read with section 33(4) and (5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Residential status - Assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54 - Assessee who was partner in Nigerian firm holding 60 per cent share in it also had concern in company which supplied agates and other items to said Nigerian firm and assessee resided at company in relevant period to manage it - ITO competed assessment on Nigerian firm in its status as resident and included share of profits earned by Nigerian firm in assessee's total income on basis that assessee was controlling affairs of said firm from India - Tribunal however, set aside assessment of Nigerian firm on ground that it was dissolved in 1952 but directed ITO to assessee share of profits of assessee in Nigerian firm in his assessment which AAC on assessee's appeal had held includible for rate purposes only - Whether there was no evidence to support finding that share of profits of assessee from Nigerian firm was derived from business in 1947, assessee, who was a proprietor of a business, took one L as a partner in firm K, which was dissolved on 31-7-1952 - Business of firm K was importing of agate stores and other articles from a firm C abroad, in which assessee was a partner - During period from 1-11-1947 of 31-8-1951, assessee resided abroad - Another concern KTC was managed by assessee's wife - By an agreement KTC agreed to supply all agate stores to firm C to be required by firm K - Assessee was assessed as resident and an ordinary resident and included share of profits in form K in assessee's income on ground that he was controlling affairs of firm K from abroad - On second appeal, Tribunal held that business of KTC was carried on and conducted by assessee himself and his wife was benamidar - Tribunal also held that there was evidence on record to indicate that control and management of firm were situated abroad - It held that assessment could not be made as against a dissolved firm and directed ITO to assess share of profits of assessee in firm K in his assessment and that department was right in treating income of KTC as assessee's income on…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492