https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8648 The court declined to answer question No. 1 regarding the stolen cash as a business loss due to insufficient evidence of its necessity for business operations. However, the court ruled in favor of the assessee for question No. 2, stating that the Income-tax Officer was unjustified in clubbing the share income of sons with their fathers in the firm's assessment. The court emphasized that post-registration, income allocation should adhere to the partnership deed, disregarding any third-party interests. The Tribunal's decision to club incomes was deemed illegal. en-us Tue, 04 Apr 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 May 2009 18:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8648 The court declined to answer question No. 1 regarding the stolen cash as a business loss due to insufficient evidence of its necessity for business operations. However, the court ruled in favor of the assessee for question No. 2, stating that the Income-tax Officer was unjustified in clubbing the share income of sons with their fathers in the firm's assessment. The court emphasized that post-registration, income allocation should adhere to the partnership deed, disregarding any third-party interests. The Tribunal's decision to club incomes was deemed illegal. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Apr 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8648