1996 (2) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the High Court ([1978] 115 ITR 95 (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 R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant-assessee, has brought to our notice the decision 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, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement the assessee was deemed to have retired from 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts and in the circumstances of the case not Rs. 1 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 onl....