https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29306 The High Court of Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the share income of minor children should not be included in the total income of the assessee under section 64(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court decided that if the father became a partner only as a representative of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and not on his own account, the income of individual minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership should not be included in the father's income. The court's decision favored the assessee in cases involving minor children benefiting from partnerships, directing that their share of profits should not be included in the personal assessment of the assessee. en-us Wed, 17 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:03:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29306 The High Court of Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the share income of minor children should not be included in the total income of the assessee under section 64(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court decided that if the father became a partner only as a representative of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and not on his own account, the income of individual minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership should not be included in the father's income. The court's decision favored the assessee in cases involving minor children benefiting from partnerships, directing that their share of profits should not be included in the personal assessment of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29306