in proceedings for assessment of the hindu undivided family it was claimed that the managing directors remuneration were personal earnings of rohatgi and companyld number be added to the income of the hindu undivided family.
21000 received by shri mathura prasad as salary from agarwal iron works agra was the income of the assessee family or shri mathura prasad in his personal capacity ?
the income tax officer f ward agra held that the income disclosed by mathura prasad as an individual was liable to be taxed in the hands of the hindu undivided family and directed inclusion of that amount in the assessment of the hindu undivided family of mathura prasad.
the appellant then applied under section 66 1 of the indian income tax act 1922 for an order referring the following question to the high companyrt for its opinion whether on the facts and in the circumstances the sum of rs.
the order passed by the income tax officer was companyfirmed in appeal by the appellate assistant companymissioner and by the income tax appellate tribunal.
a petition submitted to the high companyrt under section 66 2 of the act was also rejected.
the tribunal and the high companyrt were of the view that the question of law sought to be raised was companycluded by a judgment of this companyrt in companymissioner of income tax v. kalu babu lal chand and need number be referred for opinion.
the tribunal rejected the application and refused to state a case to the high companyrt.
the member or members shall be entitled to withdraw for such allowance a sum of money monthly which will approximately be proportionate to the expected profits of the year.
with special leave the appellant has appealed to this companyrt.
badri prasad jagan prasad.
the allowances of the managing partners of a particular place shall be debited to the profit and loss account of that place at the end of the year.
but if he or they have withdrawn more than the actual profits disclosed at the end of the year the balance of withdrawal over and above the profits shall have to be returned.
but such allowance shall number be more than profits disclosed by that business of that place in that particular year.
it the business is managed by more than one partner such allowance shall be divided equally between them.
the shares which stood in the name of rohatgi and his brother were acquired with funds belonging to the joint family and the family was in enjoyment of the dividends paid on those shares and the companypany was floated with funds provided by the family and the companypany was at all material times financed by the family.
