BANKEY LAL VAIDYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THE assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Its karta was a partner in a firm, Dhanwantri Karyalaya, with a moiety share. THE other partner was one Devi Sharan Garg, the karta of another Hindu undivided family. THE firm carried on the business of preparing and marketing indigenous medicines and also publishing and selling literature relating to such medicines.

(3.) WE are therefore, of the view that the case of the assessee fell under the third proviso to section 12B(1) and must, therefore, hold that the sum of Rs. 65,000 could not have been taxed as capital gains. Accordingly, we answer the question referred in the negative.