1996 (1) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Company and Muthuvelan and Sons separately and, vacating the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to club the income of U. T. T. Company with that of Muthuvelan and Sons and to divide the same among partners ? and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there is no sub-partnership in these cases ? " The proceedings of these references relate to the assessments of three persons, namely, (1) C. M. Gangadharan (2) C. M. Sahadevan and (3) C. M. Prabhakaran. Incidentally, they are brothers. For the purposes of these references they are partners of two partnership firms in the name and style of (1) U. T. T. Company, and (2) Muthuvelan and Sons. The proceedings....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....out of the share of the first partnership U. T. T. Co. under an independent agreement came to be agreed to be clubbed with their income from Muthuvelan and Sons and by such process, before the Income-tax Officer they filed returns with regard to the income of this partnership business showing their income from business as such. Perusal of the income-tax orders (illustratively exhibits A to A-5) specifically show this position that these assessees have shown income from other heads also. However, for the assessment years in question, the shares of income have been taken into consideration by the Income-tax Officer not on the basis of the arrangement, but treating the two partnership firms in relation to the shares of the assessees separat....