TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (2) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Bom)) under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 1,72,182 or Rs. 1,00,000 were liable to be included in the total income of the assessee as his share of profit from the firm of Kumar Engineering Works? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 50,000 received by the assessee as his s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of this court in CIT (Addl.) v. Mohanbai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 where it has been held, following the decision in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC), that even where a partner retires and some amount is paid to him towards his share in the assets, it should be treated as falling under clause (ii) of section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the firm with effect from August 31, 1961, and the remaining partners were authorised to continue to carry on the business of the firm. The assessee was paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as his share of profits of the firm for the period ending August 31, 1961. In addition to this Rs. 1,00,000 he was also paid Rs. 8,00,000 including the sum of Rs. 50,000 representing the share in the goodwill (question N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lakh, but the assessee's share of profit that may ultimately be determined in the assessment of the firm as his share of profit from the firm is liable to be included in his total income." In our opinion the answer given by the High Court is the correct one in law. We cannot agree with Mr. Sharma that inasmuch as he has actually received only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000, only that amount should be tak....