TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in the partnership which took this establishment on lease, he represented the Hindu undivided family as its karta. He received a salary of Rs. 2,975 from the lessee firm for the year ending on March 31, 1973, and entered the same in the return filed for the assessment year 1973-74 showing it as his individual income. However, the Incometax Officer included the said amount in the Hindu undivided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to refer the following three questions to this court "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the salary of Rs. 2,975 paid by M/s. Bharat Cinema (lessees), Jind, in which the assessee-individual was not a partner was rightly assessed in the hands of the assessee, specially when the family funds had been invested in the said fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three questions would show that in fact the point involved is only one and the same and has been repeated thrice in three different forms. No doubt, the question as to whether the amount of Rs. 2,975 received by way of salary was the income of the Hindu undivided family or of the assessee on the facts proved, would be a mixed question of law and fact, but as the answer would be explicit in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon which it was to receive 12 per cent. interest. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the amount paid as the salary of the assessee was nothing but constituent of the profits falling to the share of the Hindu undivided family. The decisions relied upon, namely, Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 647 (All), V. D. Dhanwatey v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 365 (SC), P. N. Krishna Iyer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
