Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 574 1967 SLD 574 (1967) 66 ITR 263
Punjab High Court
IT REFERENCE CASE No. 56 OF 1962, SEPTEMBER 2, 1965
S.S. DULAT AND SHAMSHER BAHADUR, JJ.
Kirpa Ram Bajaj, Yash Paul Mahna, J.L. Bhatia and Prem Nath Monga for the Applicant. Hardyal Hardy, Dalip K. Kapur and S.P. Agarwal for the
Respondent

Daulat Ram Narula

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] - Individual - Assessable as - Assessee had 47 pies share in a partnership firm engaged in business of liquor contract - Subsequently, by a separate partnership deed, assessee's share in firm was to be shared amongst assessee and nine other persons mentioned in deed in certain proportion - ITO taking view that subsequent partnership deed was not genuine, included entire income of share in assessee's hands alone - Tribunal confirmed ITO's order - Whether since it was clear from perusal of subsequent deed that persons mentioned therein were owners of share of 47 pies in firm, income from that share was income of all persons mentioned in deed - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, entire sum could not be included in computation of assessee's total income - Held, yes FACTS The assessee had 47 pies share in a partnership firm engaged in the business of liquor contract. The assessee-individual and other persons had obtained a excise contract for sale of liquor for the firm. By a separate partnership deed, the share in the firm was to be shared amongst the assessee and nine other persons mentioned in the deed in certain proportion. The ITO found that the second partnership deed was not genuine and included the entire income of share in the hands of the assessee alone. On appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the ITO. On reference : HELD The persons mentioned in the deed, were the owners of the share of 47.25 pies in the firm, and once that was clear, it must follow that the income from that share was the income of all the persons mentioned in the deed. On a reading of the deed, there was no escape from the conclusion that the share in the firm was during the relevant period the property of not only the present assessee but also of the other persons mentioned in the deed and in reality, therefore, the income arising out of that share was not solely the income of the assessee but only a part of that income was his real income. The deed said clearly that the persons named there were the owners of that share and if that was correct, then the income from the share must be…
🔒
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