IT: Where Assessing officer computed assessee’s income from running a bus on estimate basis, in view of fact that assessee’s son was also plying a bus and, in whose case, deduction of certain expenses was allowed while computing income from plying bus, in absence of any change in circumstances, Tribunal should have adopted same method of computation of income in assessee’s case also

IT: Where assessee became a partner in a firm and investment in partnership firm was made by assessee out of HUF funds, share income from said firm would be liable to tax in hands of assessee in capacity of individual

I. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business expenditure – Allowability of (Others) – Assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 – Assessee was deriving income from running a bus – During relevant year, Assessing Officer computed taxable income on estimate basis – Tribunal confirmed order passed by Assessing Officer – It was noted that assessee’s son was also plying a bus – Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of assessee’s son had allowed deduction of certain expenses while computing income from plying bus – Whether since there was no difference in circumstances of two cases, Tribunal should have adopted same method of computation of income in assessee’s case also – Held, yes – Whether, therefore, impugned order was to be set aside and, matter was to be remanded back to Assessing Officer with a direction to first compute expenditure by adopting computation done in assessee’s son case – Held, yes

II. Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Hindu undivided family – Assessable as (Share from firm) – Assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 – During relevant year, assessee became a partner in a firm – Investment in partnership firm was made by assessee out of HUF funds – During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer opined that share income from firm would be liable to tax in hands of assessee in capacity of individual – Tribunal upheld order passed by Assessing Officer – Whether on facts, there being no infirmity in Tribunal’s order, same did not require any interference – Held, yes

Thiru S. Dhanapal