Marimuthu Nadar was granted earned income relief only to the extent of his own individual share of the profits from the partnership.
10,143.
Narayanaswami and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondents.
N. Sanyal Additional Solicitor General of India, K. N. Rajagopal , Sastri, P. M. Sen and P. D. Menon, for the appellants.
12,344 and that of his minor son, Rs.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 28, 1956, of the Madras High Court in case Referred No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. These are two appeals against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated August 28, 1956.
In that year also, he was given earned income relief only on his share of the profits but number on the share of the profits of the minor son, which wag included in his total income.
427 and 428 of 1960.
The income of the minors was added to the total income of Marimuthu Nadar under s.16 3 a ii of the Income tax Act.
1961 August 10.
8,381.
8,124 and Rs.
Marimuthu Nadar appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also to the appellate Tribunal but his appeals were unsuccessful.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
28 of 1953.
Marimuthu Nadars share of profits was Rs.
On August 16, 1946, the family divided, and a firm came into existence.
The question, which was referred to the High Court, was as follows Whether the assessee, is entitled to earned income relief on the share income of the two minor, sons for 1949 50 assessment year and on the share income of one minor son for 1950 51 assessment year included in the companyputation of the total income of assessee under the provisions of section 16 3 a ii of the Income tax Act The respondent, S.A.S. Marimuthu Nadar, was the manager of a Hindu undivided family.
9,812, while the share of profits of his two minor sons was Rs.
The family companysisted of Marimuthu Nagar, his two major sons and two minor sons.
by which a companyposite question embracing two assessment years, referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench, B was answered against the Department.
At the instance of Marimuthu Nadar, the Tribunal referred the above question to the High Court for its decision.
Marimuthu Nadar and his two major sons took 4/16th share each and the two minor sons were admitted to the benefits of partnership to the extent of 2/16th share each.
For the assessment year, 1949 50 the previous year ended on August 16, 1948 the share of profits of Marimuthu Nadar from the partnership was Rs.
In the assessment year, 1950 51, the elder of the two minor sons had become major, and it was only the share of the remaining minor son which was included in the total income of Marimuthu Nadar.
