Individual partner's share in partnership income cannot become HUF income without clear evidence of family ownership or blending.

A partner's defined share in partnership income was treated as his individual income where the partnership deed showed him as a separate partner and did not indicate that the Hindu undivided family had entered the firm. Mere credit of the share income in family accounts was insufficient to convert it into joint family income. Tax treatment as family income required evidence that family funds or property were used in the business, or a clear intention to abandon individual ownership and throw the income into the common family stock. As no such material was shown, the share income could not be assessed as HUF income.

---

---

Issues: Whether the 2 annas 6 pies share of D.D. Kapoor in the partnership income could legally be treated as the income of the Hindu undivided family of the Kapoor brothers.

Analysis: The partnership deed showed D.D. Kapoor as an individual partner with a defined share, and it did not state that the Hindu undivided family had entered the partnership. Mere crediting of the share income in the family accounts was not enough to prove that the assessee represented the family in the partnership or that the income had become joint family income. To tax such income as family income, material had to be shown that the family funds or property were used in the business, or that there was a clear intention to abandon individual ownership and throw the income into the common family stock. No such material was produced.

Conclusion: The share income of D.D. Kapoor could not be treated as the income of the Hindu undivided family, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

---