SECOND INCOME-TAX OFFICER Vs. N R GOPALAKRISHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, filed by the department, involve a common question for consideration. hey are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Shri N. R. Gopalakrishnan is the karta of the assessee-HUF. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, he was partner in the firms of EASSN Somasundaram Chettiar and Co. and Madurai Mercantile Mart representing his HUF and received the following amounts as salary for the services rendered by him to them : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_50_LAWS(MAD)11_1984_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The ITO was of the view that a firm has no separate legal entity from its partners and that the salary received by the partner was, in reality, only a mode of division of profits of the firm. He, therefore, held that the aforesaid amounts were includible in the income of the assessee-HUF.