SHANKERLAL H DAVE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the first reference the question which is posed by the Tribunal is as under :

(2.) THE assessee, an HUF (Shri Shankerlal Harishankar Dave) in question, was at the relevant time constituted of the karta. Shri Shankerlal H. Dave, his wife, Shardaben, and their son, Pramod Shankerlal Dave, and two daughters, all children being minors. The HUF was a partner through its karta in the following four firms in the first two years and in five partnership firms for the subsequent years covered by the other reference as under :

(3.) THEREAFTER , the Tribunal observed that the AAC has misdirected himself in relying on the Jitmal ratio for holding that the services rendered by the karta in the present case were allowable on the ground that Jitmal's case : [1962]44ITR887(SC) , laid a clear guideline that if a member rendered services to certain partnership concerns, in which the HUF was a partner through him, such services rendered could not be termed as services rendered to the HUF. The AAC's attempt to superimpose the ratio of a subsequent decision was also commented upon by the Tribunal by observing as under :