1986 (2) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... common order. 2. A partial partition of the amount of Rs. 50,000 belonging to the assessee was carried out on 30th March, 1979. This amount was distributed amongst the members of the HUF as follows: 1. Maganlal Mohanlal Panchal Rs. 30,000 2. Kacharalal Mohanlal Panchal Rs. 10,000 3. Revabhai Mohanlal Panchal Rs. 10,000 The said sums then came to the respective smaller HUFs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion which belonged to the assessee. 3. The question before us is whether the income earned by the partnership firms can be so added in the hands of the HUF, which means that we have to ascertain whether there is a connection between the earning of that income and the capital contributed from the finds received on the partition of the HUF. 4. The assessee's ld. counsel pointed out that in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....attribution to the funds which belonged to the assessee-HUF because the partition was not recognised. He argued that since the partition was not recognised, the members of the assessee-HUF who became partners did not represent their smaller HUFs but represented the assessee-HUF. 5. First of all, it is well established proposition that it is not necessary that an HUF should have any property in ....