TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules managing agency income not part of Hindu undivided family income.</h1> <h3>R. Hanumanthappa & Son Versus Commissioner of Income-tax</h3> The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the managing agency income should not be included in the total income of the Hindu undivided ... - Issues:1. Inclusion of managing agency remuneration in the total income of the assessee family.2. Interpretation of managing agency agreement in relation to income taxation.3. Validity of partnership deed in determining individual income versus joint family income.Analysis:The case involved the question of whether the income derived by individuals under a managing agency agreement with a company should be included in the total income of the assessee Hindu undivided family. The income accrued in the Native State was exempt from tax under Section 14 but could be considered in computing the total income under Section 16 for rate determination. The key issue was whether the managing agency income should be attributed to the joint family under Section 16 of the Income Tax Act.The court examined the managing agency agreement entered into by the individuals, noting that a joint family, as per the Indian Companies Act, cannot enter into such agreements. The agreement was initially between the firm and the company, and even if entered into individually, the joint family would not benefit unless acting for the family's interest. A subsequent partnership deed between the individuals established a partnership, indicating the income earned was individual, not joint family income. The deed allowed the partners to draw and utilize their shares individually, emphasizing that income would only become joint family income upon mutual agreement.The court referenced the Murugappa Chetty case, highlighting that past treatment of income as joint family income does not automatically convert subsequent earnings unless agreed upon. The partnership deed, registered under the Mysore Partnership Act, clarified that the income earned by the partners was individual income, not joint family income. The court concluded that the managing agency income should not be included in the total income of the assessee family, ruling in favor of the assessee based on the partnership deed's provisions and the absence of mutual agreement to treat the income as joint family income.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
