| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 311 1966 SLD 311 (1966) 62 ITR 358 |
Madras High Court
TAX CASE No. 43 OF 1963 AND IT REFERENCE No. 14 OF 1963, NOVEMBER 1, 1965
VEERASWAMI AND VENKATADRI, JJ
S. Swaminathan for the Applicant. V. Balasubrahmanyan for the
Respondent
TAX CASE No. 43 OF 1963 AND IT REFERENCE No. 14 OF 1963, NOVEMBER 1, 1965
VEERASWAMI AND VENKATADRI, JJ
S. Swaminathan for the Applicant. V. Balasubrahmanyan for the
Respondent
T.T. Rathnasabapathy Pillai
v.
Commissioner of INCOME TAX
Law:
Section:
Section 4 of the Income-tax act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Hindu undivided family - Assessable as - Assessment year 1960-61 - Whether if remuneration is earned with help of joint family assets, remuneration will be income of family and for this purpose there would be no difference between direct use of joint family founds and use which qualified member to make gains on his own efforts - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was an advocate by profession and was the karta of a HUF. From 1924-25, to 1956-57, he was assessed as an individual on his income derived from the profession, dividend from companies and interest. In the course of these years, he acquired shares in a number of companies which yielded dividends. By virtue of the share qualification he had, he also became a director in a number of these companies and the sitting fees received by him as a director increased. Later the assessee abandoned all his separate interests in the properties owned by him as an individual and threw them into the family hotchpot. His status was, therefore, taken for the assessment year 1957-58 as that of a joint Hindu family. His income from profession and sitting fees, however, was assessed in his status as an individual from 1957-58. But, for the assessment year 1960-61, the ITO treating the income from sitting fees as that of the HUF and assessed it on that basis. The AAC and the Tribunal concurred with him. On reference, the assessee contented that his declarations were limited to his morable and immovable properties and did not included the sitting fees and that the original acquisition by the assessee of the shares was without any detriment to his status of Hindu undivided family HELD As regards the first contention, it was true the assessee's declarations stated nothing about the vesting of income or throwing the office of the director in the several companies into the hotchpot. The assessee was right in his submission that the sitting fees pertained to the office of director. There was no doubt that the sitting fees may and can be blended with the assets of the joint Hindu family but, for such blending, the fee must exist. It may…
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