- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned standing counsel for the IT Department.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961. The facts are that one Brij Mohan Gupta and one Anil partners. Two of the partners were the wives of Brij Mohan Gupta and Anil Gupta who had 47 per cent share each, in the firm. The third partner Shiv Charan Agarwal had a nominal 6 per cent share in the new firm.
(3.) MOHAN Gupta and Anil Gupta to the new firm in which excluding the nominal share of 6 per cent the bulk holding belonged to the two wives of the aforesaid two lessors. The property was let out to this new firm at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000 only, whereas prior to it the property was fetching a rent of Rs. 7,515. Apparently, the income from this building, which had been leased by the owners Brij Mohan Gupta and Anil Gupta in favour of their wives was only rental income. Applying s. 64(1)(iv), the income from the building was clubbed as income from house property with the income of the husbands.;