1985 (5) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... firms. The share income belonged to the HUF. There was a partition in the family on 19-10-1971. Subsequent to this partition, another partnership firm was formed in which the coparceners of the erstwhile family became the partners. The income of the firm was the share income from the three firms, earlier referred to in which Shri Manvi formerly represented the HUF but now represents the coparcene....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s been made a partner in the firms in his individual capacity only. Therefore, in the ordinary course the share incomes from the three firms should have been assessed on M.S. Manvi in his individual status. What the individual does with the income after the receipt thereof is only an application of the income. But apparently the ITO did not assess the income on the individual in view of the divers....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hands of the HUF. After partition, the share income does not go to Shri Manvi exclusively but to all the coparceners. The coparceners for their own convenience decided to have the share income assessed in the hands of a firm and then got it distributed as partners of the second firm. The argument that the sub-partnership also has paid tax and, therefore, there is double taxation is not tenable. Ha....