https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67274 The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Income Tax Officer, affirming the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision that the share income derived by a partner from a firm did not belong to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Tribunal emphasized that income earned by a partner using personal skill and without family funds does not belong to the family under Hindu law. It rejected the ITO's arguments and found no evidence to support the claim that the partner's share income should be attributed to the HUF. The judgment clarifies the distinction between individual and family income and underscores the need for concrete evidence in determining ownership of share income. en-us Sun, 16 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:17:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67274 The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Income Tax Officer, affirming the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision that the share income derived by a partner from a firm did not belong to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Tribunal emphasized that income earned by a partner using personal skill and without family funds does not belong to the family under Hindu law. It rejected the ITO's arguments and found no evidence to support the claim that the partner's share income should be attributed to the HUF. The judgment clarifies the distinction between individual and family income and underscores the need for concrete evidence in determining ownership of share income. Case-Laws Income Tax Sun, 16 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67274