1984 (5) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Officer by his order dated March 27, 1981, held the firm as not genuine for three reasons: (i) that Smt. Rukmabai did not know anything about the business activities of the firm; (ii) that in the capital brought by Smt. Rukmabai, Shri Shyam Sunder Dhoot had vested interest and, therefore, it was in fact the capital of Shri Syam Sunder Dhoot himself and he could not enter into a valid partnership with her (Smt. Rukmabai) and the profits arising out of such investment belonged to Shri Shyam Sunder Dhoot; (iii) that the control and maintenance over the affairs of the firm was that of Shri Shyam Sander Dhoot and ultimately all its profits as well as capital in the name of Smt. Rukmabai were in the names of the children of Shri Shyam ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that Smt. Rukmabai was not benamidar of Shri Shyam Sunder Dhoot in the case of M/s. Gulabdas Jagannath, Jodhpur ?" The Appellate Tribunal rejected the five reference applications filed under section 256(1) of the Act holding that no referable question of law arose out its consolidated order accepting the five appeals filed by the assessee-respondent. The Appellate Tribunal in its order dated March 16, 1983, has held (i) that the property received by Shri Jagnnath Dhoot formed the Hindu undivided family property consisting of Shri Jagnnath and Smt. Rukmabai and on the death of the former, the latter became the absolute owner of this property as the only son, Shri Shy....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ender the partnership invalid and so even if there was no contribution of capital by Smt. Rukmabai, it did not render the firm invalid. The question is merely of an academic nature and, therefore, it does not give rise to any question of law. The second and the third questions suggested by the Commissioner of Income-tax are with respect to the genuineness of the firm and benami character of Smt. Rukmabai. We have gone through the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated March 16, 1983. While arriving at the aforesaid conclusions, the Tribunal has taken the relevant material and circumstances into consideration. The findings whether the firm is genuine or whether a particular transaction is benami or not are findings of fact until and unless....