Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vallabhdas Manjibhai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference Nos. 495 of 1980, 315 and 124 of 1982
Judge
Reported in(1986)51CTR(Guj)379; [1987]163ITR59(Guj)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 64 and 64(1)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax;commissioner of Income-tax;commissioner of Income-tax
RespondentVallabhdas Manjibhai;ratanlal Manchharam;jayantilal Jaikishandas
Cases ReferredDinubhai Ishvarlal Patel v. K. D. Dixit
Excerpt:
- - we, therefore, intend to dispose of this group of references by this common judgment, though the questions referred to us are not precisely identical......ito : [1979]118itr122(guj) , where the division bench has held that if one of the partners in a firm is a partner in a representative capacity for and on behalf of his joint family, the mere fact that his spouse is also a partner in the same firm or his minor children have been admitted to the benefits of that partnership firm would not attract section 64(1)(ii) of the income-tax act, 1961, making the income of such spouse or the children liable to be clubbed with the income of the person who is a partner in a representative capacity. for the self-same reasons, in all these three references, we have to answer the questions as under : 3. i.t.r. no. 495 of 1980 : we answer question no. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. we answer question no......
Judgment:

B.K. Mehta, J.

1. In this group of three references at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Baroda, the dispute relates to the attraction of section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purposes of clubbing the income of the minor sons admitted to the benefits of partnership, or for that matter, of the wife from the profits of the firm with the income of the father or the husband, as the case may be, where such father or husband is a partner in the same firm in his representative capacity. We, therefore, intend to dispose of this group of references by this common judgment, though the questions referred to us are not precisely identical.

2. The dispute is covered so far as this court is concerned by the decision in Dinubhai Ishvarlal Patel v. K. D. Dixit, ITO : [1979]118ITR122(Guj) , where the Division Bench has held that if one of the partners in a firm is a partner in a representative capacity for and on behalf of his joint family, the mere fact that his spouse is also a partner in the same firm or his minor children have been admitted to the benefits of that partnership firm would not attract section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making the income of such spouse or the children liable to be clubbed with the income of the person who is a partner in a representative capacity. For the self-same reasons, in all these three references, we have to answer the questions as under :

3. I.T.R. No. 495 of 1980 : We answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We answer question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, i.e., provisions of section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act could not be invoked.

4. I.T.R. No. 315 of 1982 : We answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

5. I.T.R. No. 124 of 1982 : We answer the questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

6. There would be no order as to costs in each of these references.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //