TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (1) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vered by S. S. SODHI J.-The two questions of law referred for the opinion of this court read as under : "(1) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal has been in error in law in holding that there is no legal bar on the 'karta' of a Hindu undivided family to enter into a partnership with a co-parcener of his own family ? (2) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal has been in error in law in holdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nership was allowed registration for the assessment year 1964-65 and such registration continued in terms of section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the assessment year 1965-66. In the meanwhile, the Income-tax Officer, dealing with the partial partition case of the Hindu undivided family of Brij Bhushan Lal, which took place in the previous year r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contributing his skill and labour instead of his separate property. This is also the view of the Supreme Court as expressed in Ratanchand Darbarilal v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 720. It is also pertinent to note that on the facts, there is a clear finding recorded by the Tribunal that Suresh Kumar, one of the partners of the firm, was a genuine partner and that he contributed his labour and skill to i....