These appeals are brought by special leave on behalf of the Commissioner of, Income Tax, Bangalore from the judgment of the Mysore High Court, dated 19th January, 1965 in Income Tax Reference No.
In so companytending the assessee relied on clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the Instrument of Partnership dated 5 6 1961 by which the firm of M s C. U. Shah and Company was companystituted.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 19, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in I.T.R.C. No.
C. Chagla, Sharad J. Mhaispurkar, O. P. Malhotra and C. Mathur, for the respondent.
1,000/ Rupees one thousand only per month in addition to all other benefits that he is entitled to enjoy as a partner of the firm.
He was paid Rs.
12,000/ per 1 year for both the assessment years by M s C. U. Shah and Company.
necessary and a visable.
The assessee also relied on clauses 14, 15 and 16 of the Instrument of Partnership dated 11 9 1957 by which the firm of M s Oriental Can Manufacturing Company was companystituted.
Shri D. C. Shah was paid a remuneration of Rs.
Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee companytended that remuneration received by Shri D. C. Shah was his personal income and the amounts were wrongly shown in the returns of the Hindu Undivided Family as its income and should number have been included in the assessment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Niren De, Attorney General, S. C. Manchanda and R. N. Sach they, for the appellant.
10,000/ for the assessment year 1959 60 by the Oriental Can Manufacturing Company.
The Income Tax Officer in assessing the Hindu Undivided Family included the remuneration received by Shri D. C. Shah as a part of the share income from the respective firms.
The assessment years are 1959 60 and 1960 61 and the relevant accounting periods are Samvat years 2014 and 2015.
The said Managing partner shall companytinue to be the Managing Partner for his life time or his retirement whichever is earlier.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. The respondent is a Hindu Undivided Family hereinafter called the assessee of which Shri D. C. Shah is the karta.
The amounts received by Shri D. C. Shah were shown by the assessee in its, returns of income along with balance of the share income from the aforesaid firms.
817 and 818 of 1966.
The assessee through its karta Shri D. C. Shah was a partner in the firms of 1 M s C. U. Shah and Co. and M s Oriental Can Manufacturing Co. as per terms and companyditions set out in the Instruments of Partnership dated 5 6 1961 and 11 9 1957.
The said Managing partner shall manage, direct, appoint and or remove any one of the employees, and or do all other things, which include right to draw cheques, to make, deliver and accept documents either legal or companymercial in respect of the partnership business as may be deemed necessary for effectively carrying on the partnership business.
1 of 1964.
All other partners shall devote as much time to the furtherance of the partnership business as they think proper,.
1 of 1964.
was the salary received by D. C. Shah from the two firms of M s C. U. Shah Co. and M s Oriental Can Manufacturing Co., includible in the assessment of the H.U.F. of which Shri D. Shah was the Karta?
1 Shri D. C. Shah who has been managing the business of this firm shall hereinafter also companytinue to act as Managing partner for companyducting the said business free from any interference of other partners, of whatsoever nature.
At the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal stated a case to the High Court on the following question of law Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease.,
The Income Tax Officer thereafter preferred appeals to the Income Tax Tribunal which set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and held that the remuneration paid should be included in the total income of the assessee.
