TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing questions of law to this court for its opinion : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the family arrangement was fictitious and sham transaction and that the business of the Hindu undivided family continued to belong to it as before, in the assessment years in question and whether there was no evidence in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 1962-63, the assessee claimed that there was a partial partition between the karta of the Hindu undivided family, S. R. Kalani, and his adoptive mother on August 17, 1961, and that on the same day the Hindu undivided family business had been converted into a partnership, business as a result of partnership entered into between S. R. Kalani and his adoptive mother, Smt. Badamibai. It was contende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that sum of Rs. 43,000 belonged to Smt. Badamibai as her streedhan was also rejected by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, treated the income arising to the minors from admission to the benefits of the partnership as income of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. On appeal, it was held that the gifts from out of the amount of streedhan by Smt. Badamibai were valid and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hindu undivided family. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee sought reference and it is at the instance of the assessee that the aforesaid questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion. Now, so far as questions Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, identical questions were referred to this court in the case of the assessee for different assessment years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om out of investments made from the amount received by them by way of gifts was includible in the hands of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the income of Vijaykumar and Narendrakumar was liable to be included in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. For all these reasons, our answers to questions Nos. 1 and 2 are in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
