Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-20-1973
Reported in : ILR1974KAR515; 95ITR321(KAR); 95ITR321(Karn); 1974(1)KarLJ145
..... the one before me, came up for consideration before the supreme court in sahu rajeshwar nath v. income-tax officer. that case arose under the indian income-tax act, 1922. the assesses therein was an unregistered firm of partnership. a certificate of recovery was also issued in the name of the said assesses. on the strength of the certificate, the tax recovery officer ..... with a summons and has failed to appear : provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the provisions of section 247 of the indian contract act, 1872. (2) where the decree-holder claims to be entitled to cause the decree to be executed against any person other than such a person as is referred to ..... collector, on receipt or a certificate under section 46(2), to recover from the partner the amount of tax due by the unregistered partnership. repelling that contention, the supreme court held :'the proviso to section 46(2) of the act states that the collector shall, without prejudice to any other powers in that behalf 'for the purpose of recovering the said amount ..... '. 12. section 189(3) of the act corresponds to section 44(3) of the income-tax act, 1922. section 222 of the act corresponds to section 46(2) of the income-tax act, 1922, the only difference being that the proviso to section 46(2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, is omitted in section 222 of the act. the said proviso read thus :'provided that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-21-1973
Reported in : 91ITR531(KAR); 91ITR531(Karn); (1973)1MysLJ517
..... income-tax by transferring his assets to his wife or minor child or admitting his wife as a partner or admitting his minor child to the benefits of partnership in a firm in which such individual is a partner. in such a case, the income of the wife or minor children is regarded as the income ..... income of hiss minor sons included in his income under section 16 (3) as the assessee's earned income. minor minor sons were admitted to the benefits of partnership in a firm of which the assesses was a partner. i was held by the madras high court in marimuthu nadar v. commissioner of income-tax that such ..... much as that business was being carried on by the from in which his wife was a partner and his minor children were admitted to the defendants of the partnership and the share income of his wife and minor children was included in the assessee's income under section 16 (3). 2. the department, being aggrieved by ..... the losses against the share income of the assessee's wife and minor children in respect of the assessment year 1959-60 under section 24 (2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 ?' [after setting out the statement of case the learned judge continued] 7. these are three reference made at the instance of the assessee by the ..... was being carried on by the firm in which his wife was a partner and his minor children were admitted to the benefits of the partnership and their share of income was held by the department as an income of the assessee, alothough under section 16 (3) of the income-tax .....Tag this Judgment!