https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61390 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the shares of Shri Satish Kumar should not be clubbed with Shri Rattan Lal HUF's income. The partnership deed did not require capital contribution from all partners and did not designate Satish Kumar as a dormant partner, as he actively participated in the business. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,500 for low household withdrawals, as Satish Kumar, a member of the HUF, had no withdrawals compared to other partners. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:40:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61390 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the shares of Shri Satish Kumar should not be clubbed with Shri Rattan Lal HUF's income. The partnership deed did not require capital contribution from all partners and did not designate Satish Kumar as a dormant partner, as he actively participated in the business. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,500 for low household withdrawals, as Satish Kumar, a member of the HUF, had no withdrawals compared to other partners. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61390