1948 (8) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, CJ.-The question for decision in this case is: "Whether there is a change in the persons carrying on the business within the meaning of Section 8(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, when the business which was previously carried on and owned by the Hindu undivided family and a stranger is on desruption of the family being carried on and owned by a partnership composed of the members ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of this section, be deemed for all the purposes of this Act except for the purposes of determining the amount of the statutory percentage to have been discontinued, and a new business to have been commenced." In Section 2, clause (17), "person" is defined as including a Hindu undivided family. The legal position in this case before the disruption of the joint family was that ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the family were also persons carrying on the business. This contention is obviously unsound having regard to well established principles of Hindu law. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Pichappa Chettiar v. Chokkalingam Pillai [1934] 67 MLJ 366accepted as correct the following proposition of law in Mayne's Hindu law (9th edition) at page 398:- "Where a managing member of a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing observations of Leach, C.J., in Govindarajulu v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [1944] 12 ITR 97 (Mad.), are apposite in this connection: "When a Hindu joint family separates and its members carry on the family business in partnership, there is a change in ownership. The business is no longer owned by the joint family but by the firm, an entirely different entity, and the fact that ....