A deed of partnership dated November 14, 1944, was also produced before the Income tax Officer.
The two members of the Appellate Tribunal gave different reasons.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 23, 1958, of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No.
The assessee firm carries on business which is mainly speculation.
Bombay, disallowed these losses and added back this amount along with some others to companyvert a loss of Rs.
Thereafter pursuant to an order obtained by the respondent firm from the High Court of Bombay, two questions were referred by the Tribunal to that Court for decision.
This profit was carried by him in accordance with the share of the partners into their individual assessment.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee firm and so also the Appellate Tribunal.
Both these questions were.
545 of 1961.
The sum of Rs.
55,931 declared by the assessee firm into a profit of Rs.
This venture was carried on in the name of Damji Laxmidas on behalf of an alleged firm in which Damji was said to have a share of /6/ and the assessee firm the balance.
1,05,641 which it was said, arose in speculation in a venture of the assessee firm with one Damji Laxmidas.
The judgment of Kapur and Hidayatullah, jj.
answered by the High Court against the Department and the Commissioner of Income tax has thereupon filed the present appeal.
1,88,575.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
23 of 1958.
In the assessment of Damji, it may be stated here, the loss was number allowed on the ground that having arisen in an unregistered partnership, it companyld only be companysidered in the assessment of the unregistered partnership.
Purushottam Trikamdas, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. Vohra, for the respondent.
N. Rajagopal Sastri and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
The so called firm of Damji Laxmidas and the assessee firm was an unregistered one.
What ever may be said of the losses claimed by Damji which were in excess of the agreed share the same cannot be said of the assessee firm which is claiming a share of losses which is less than the a greed rate.
The facts are simple.
The respondent is a firm companysisting of four partners and was registered under section 26A of the Income tax Act for the relevant year.
HIDAYATULLAH J. This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay.,
was delivered by Hidayatullah, J., Sarkar, J., delivered a separate judgment.
The year of account is the S. Y. 2001 companyresponding to October 10, 1944, to November 4, 1945, and the assessment year is 1946 47.
The following judgments were delivered.
In the year of account it claimed inter alia a loss of Rs.
against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated October 23, 1958, by which the High Court answered two questions referred to it under s. 66 2 of the Income tax Act in favour of the respondent jadavji Narsidas Co. The High Court certified this case as fit for appeal to the Supreme Court and hence this appeal.
October 12.
1,05,641 represented half the losses of the joint venture, the other half being claimed by Damji in his own individual assess ment.
The Income tax Officer.,
