1985 (7) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Lal, as karta of his Hindu undivided family, was a partner in a number of firms. On November 1, 1963, he entered into an agreement of sub-partnership with his son, Suresh Kumar, a coparcener in the Hindu undivided family, to share profits derived from the firm, Messrs. Brij Bhushan Lal Romesh Kumar. Prior thereto, the income from the said firm was being assessed in the hands of Brij Bhushan Lal a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fter considering the reply submitted by the assessee, cancelled the registration. The order having been affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal who reversed the same and restored the registration of the sub-partnership. An application filed by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Act was also dismissed which led to the filing of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ily to enter into partnership with a coparcener of his own family ? " The Tribunal held that the proposition, subject-matter of question No. 3, stood concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sir Hukumchand Mannalal and Co. [1970] 78 ITR 18 and declined the reference of questions Nos. 1 and 2, observing that the same were only consequential to question No. 3. A perusal of the said Su....