On further appeal, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal also came to the same companyclusion that there was numbervalid partnership and the business companysequently must be taken to companytinue in the hands of the joint family.
An application was made for regis tration of the firm which was dismissed by the Income tax officer on the ground that there was numbervalid partnership.
The deed of partnership executed in this behalf on 12th November, 1959 indicated that Naresh Chandrakant had been admitted as a working partner with effect from 1st November, 1959 having 35 per cent share in the profits and losses of the firm and the remaining 65 per cent share was held by Chandrakant Manilal as the Kartas of the HUF.
From the Judgment and order dated 22.7.75 of the Bombay High Court in ITR No.
95 of 1965.
However, at the instance of the asses see the following question was referred by the Tribunal to the High Court for its opinion Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a valid partnership under Annexure A between Shri Chandrakant, as the Karta of the HUF and Shri Naresh, a member of the family?
The as sessment year under reference was 11 62.
Harish N. Salve and Mrs. A.K. Verma for the Appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Chandrakant Manilal Shah was the Karta of a Hindu undi vided family HUF and the family was carrying on business of cloth.
C. Manchanda, K.P. Bhatnagar and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
Naresh Chandrakant, one of the sons of Chandrakant Manilal Shah, joined the business on a monthly salary of Rs.
95 of 15 made under Section 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922.
1187 NT of 1976.
The nature of companysideration will depend on the nature of the companytract between the two individuals.
Such individual may, for companysideration, utilise the capacity possessed by him even for the benefit of some other individual.
100/ since about April 1959.
It was asserted that with effect from 1st November 1959 the business had been companyvert ed into a partnership between Chandrakant Manilal Shah as Karta of HUF and Naresh Chandrakant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA, J. This appeal by special leave has been pre ferred against the judgment dated 22nd July, 1975 of the Bombay High Court in I.T. Ref.
This capacity is in its very nature an individual achievement and numbermally varies from individual to individual.
The view taken by the Income tax officer was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
