https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18435 Minor sons' share income from a partnership firm, where they were admitted only to the benefits of partnership and their fathers were partners as kartas of Hindu undivided families, was not includible in the assessee's income under section 64(1)(iii). The controlling principle was that binding Supreme Court precedent on the same legal question governed the reference, and contrary High Court decisions did not displace that authority; the Madras decision cited was treated as distinguishable on facts. The reference was therefore answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 12 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:36:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18435 Minor sons' share income from a partnership firm, where they were admitted only to the benefits of partnership and their fathers were partners as kartas of Hindu undivided families, was not includible in the assessee's income under section 64(1)(iii). The controlling principle was that binding Supreme Court precedent on the same legal question governed the reference, and contrary High Court decisions did not displace that authority; the Madras decision cited was treated as distinguishable on facts. The reference was therefore answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18435