I P MUNAVALLI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX MYSORE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX MYSORE
Referred Judgements :-
SUNDAR SINGH MAJITHIA V. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX
GOVINDARAJULU CHETTIAR V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
LACHMAN DAS V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
PITAMBERDAS BHIKHABAI AND CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
DORAISWAMI CHETTIAR AND SONS V. COMMR,OF INCOME-TAX
ESTURI ASWATHIAH V. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX
Click here to view full judgement.
SOMNATH IYER, J. -
(1.)This reference at the instance of the assessees is made by the Income-
tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The father I.P.Munavalli and the son C.I.Munavalli are the assessees
and the ass'essment year is 1963-64. The Hindu undivided family of which
I.P. Munavalli was the karta, was carrying on a business in foodgrains
and pulses and on November 9, 1961, according to the statement of the case
submitted to us, the father and the son entered into an agreement of partnership
under which the son became a woTking partner and the other partner was the
Joint family of which the father was the karta. The profits
and losses had to be shared equally by the two partners.
(2.)When the assessees made an application for registration of the firm
under Section 185 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer refused registration
on the ground that there was no partition between the members of the
family, and there was no genuine partnership which came into being between
the members of the family.
(3.)The appellate assistant commissioner was of a different view. In his
opinion, a partnership between the Hindu Joint-family represented by the
karta and a member of the coparcenary who' became a working partner
was a good partnership and that there was no legal impediment to such
a partnership coming into being. He was of the further opinion that the
partnership was a genuine partnership. So, he granted the registration
sought by the assessees.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.