21,622 15 3, being one fourth thereof, were transferred to the accounts of each of the three disponees.
The assessees companytentions were number accepted by the Income tax Officer, and his appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal also failed.
142 and 143 of 1960.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated July 21, 1955, of the Madras High Court in C.R. No.
3The Beneficiary shall be entitled directly to receive and companylect from the firm the share of profits hereby transferred for the said period of eight years This settlement shall be irrevocable.
In the same way, the profits of the previous year ending April 13, 1948, were disposed of.
He also companytended that the amount payable to his wife and two daughters never became his income, being diverted by an overriding title, and that the case was governed by the rule laid down by the Privy Council in Bijoy Singh Dudhuria v. Commissioner of Income tax, Bengal 1 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The appeals have been filed with a certificate granted by the High companyrt.
This amount was credited to the account of Rangachari, and Rs.
January 10.
For the assessment year 1947 48 companyresponding to a previous year ending on April 13, 1947, the profits due to Rangachari amounted to Rs.
To each of them, he assigned a fourth share of the profits of the firm payable to him but number the losses , for a period of 8 years, vesting the right in them to receive the said share of profits absolutely and exclusively and declaring the settlements to be irrevocable during the above period.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J. These are two appeals by the legal representatives of one A. R. Rangachari, who died during the pendency, in the High Court at Madras, of proceedings in a reference under s. 66 1 of the Income tax Act made by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench.
Rangachari was one of five partners of a firm, Messrs. Chari and Ram, and held a six anna share in the profits and loss of the partnership.
The assessee claimed that these amounts companyld number be included in his total income for purposes of assessment, being excluded by reason of the third proviso to s. 16 1 c of the Income tax Act.
S. Pathak and Naunit Lal, for the appellants.
N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta for the respondent.
32 of 1952.
86,491 13 0.
