Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

1984 (2) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he firm styled as Karnal Tractors and Motor Workshop (hereinafter referred to as "the firm"). He had 25 per cent. share in the profits of the firm. He entered into a sub-partnership with his father-in-law, giving him 40 per cent. share of the profit which fell to his lot on the ground that his father-in-law had advanced Rs. 12,000 for investment in the main firm. The main firm had been functioning....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e ?" This question was answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue in CIT v. Kanhayalal Ram Chand [1979] 119 ITR 377 (P & H), (Income-tax Reference No. 45 of 1975 decided on December 10, 1976). When the Commissioner of Income-tax applied to the Tribunal for reference in the instant case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that under section 184(7) of the In....