1993 (3) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me of the minor sons assessed in the hands of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Dharam Chand, was a partner of Messrs. Jain Vastralaya, Bhawani Mandi, in the status of Hindu undivided family (HUF). The assessment was completed under section 143(1) on November 24, 1975, on a total income of Rs. 13,480. The Income-tax Officer found that the minor sons of the assessee, namely, Shri Rajesh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, were admitted as partners in the firm, Messrs. Kanhaiyalal and Sons , to the benefits of the partnership with effect from November 14, 1974. The share of such minors was sought to be taxed on a protective basis in the hands of the father attracting ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'s share, of income from the firm is assessed in his hands as that of an individual or as that of the Hindu undivided family. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in the cases of Madho Prasad v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 492 and Addl. CIT v. Yashwant Lal [1979] 119 ITR 18 and a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sahu Govind Prasad v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 851. On the other hand, the following High Courts have taken the view that, when the father is a partner in a representative capacity as a "karta" and the minor child is also admitted to the benefits of partnership, then the minor's share income cannot be included in the income of the father in his individual capacity : (1) CIT v. Sanka San....