TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (5) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a HUF, used for the business of the firm in which the HUF is said to be a partner, for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. 2. The assessments for both the above assessment years were originally completed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on 19-2-1980, adopting the share-income from the firm of V. Veeraraghavulu & Co. in which the assessee-HUF was a partner. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... utilised for the business by the firm in which the karta, his wife and a third party were partners, that up to 1977-78 rent was being charged and shown, that from 1978-79, however, no rent was charged, that the property was owned by the assessee-HUF, that the firm and HUF were separate entities and that in these circumstances the ITO was justified in estimating the property income at Rs. 1,200. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive also pointed out that there was also a stranger partner in the firm. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. It is common ground that the share-income from the firm of V. Veeraraghavulu & Co., Rajahmundry, belonged to the assessee-HUF. It is true that it is well-settled that the business carried on by a firm is the business carried on by its partners, that the share of a partner is busin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....When an HUF is represented by the karta or a member as partner in a firm, he occupies dual capacity qua the partnership, he functions in his individual capacity and qua the third parties, in his representative capacity. This position is well-settled by the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co. [1965] 55 ITR 660 (SC). Therefore, it is clear that so far as the firm is concerned, S....