9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (1) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which the partners are the Kartas. 2. The assessee before us are two HUFs. The Kartas of these two families are two separated brothers. They, along with another brother and their mother were carrying on business in gold and silver as a partnership-firm styled M/s Ganesh & Co. In that firm the three brothers represented their respective HUFs and their capital was the shares which they received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceding assessment year. On appeal to the AAC the assessees were able to bring-out the fact that the initial capital for the new firm was not contributed by the joint families of each of the partners and that the funds of the joint families were only taken as deposits carrying interest. The AAC therefore accepted the contention of the assessee and deleted the share of income from the firm from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see that the firm in which the mother was a partner had come to an end on her death and therefore the new firm was entirely a new venture in which the partners were free to invest whatever the capital they wanted. It was therefore submitted that it was an arrangement entirely within the province of the partners and could not be questioned in the assessment proceedings. 5. We have carefully consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm is assessable in the hands of the partner in his individual assessment or in the hands of the Hindu undivided family of which he is a Karta we have to see whether it was earned by the utilisation of the Hindu undivided family funds. The recitals in the partnership is clear evidence of the fact that the joint family funds were not utilised as the capital of the firm by the partners. Whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
