V. D. DHANWATEY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, M.P. NAGPUR

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1371/1966Supreme Court[1968] 2 S.C.R. 6226 October 1967Bench: 5 JudgesAuthor: K.N. WANCHOO, R.S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, G.K. MITTER, K.S. HEGDE26 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) represented by its karta, M.D. Dhanwatey. The assessment year in question is 1954-55. M.D. Dhanwatey was a partner in a firm, M/s. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, with his capital contribution entirely from the HUF. The partnership deed stipulated remuneration for partners, including Rs. 1,250 per month for M.D. Dhanwatey. He was paid Rs. 7,500 for the relevant accounting year. The assessee claimed this remuneration as individual income of M.D. Dhanwatey, not taxable in the hands of the HUF. The Income Tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Appellate Tribunal, and High Court all rejected this claim, holding the remuneration to be income of the HUF.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

By a majority, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had rightly answered the question of law against the assessee and dismissed the appeals. The Court reasoned that the investment of joint family funds in the partnership enabled M.D. Dhanwatey to become a partner, establishing a real and sufficient connection between this investment and the remuneration paid. Therefore, the remuneration was not earned without detriment to the Hindu joint family funds, falling within the principle laid down in C.I.T. v. Kalu Babu Lal Chand and Mathura Prasad v. C.I.T., U.P. The Court affirmed the doctrine of Hindu Law that property acquired by a karta with the aid of joint family assets is impressed with the character of joint family property, and the test for self-acquisition requires it to be without detriment to the ancestral estate. The finding of the Tribunal that remuneration was received without detriment to family funds was considered a conclusion on a mixed question of law and fact, which the High Court was entitled to examine for correct application of legal principles. The majority dismissed the appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 7,500 to Shri M.D. Dhanwatey for rendering services to the firm could be included in the total income of the assessee family? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 10(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and principles of Hindu Law). Assessee's contention: The remuneration was earned by M.D. Dhanwatey in his individual capacity for services rendered as manager, and thus constituted his individual income, not taxable in the hands of the HUF. They relied on the principle that remuneration paid to a partner for services rendered can be individual income if it is without detriment to the family assets and if the family agrees to it being individual income. Revenue's contention: The remuneration paid to M.D. Dhanwatey was an adjustment of the HUF's share in the partnership profits, as his capital contribution was from the HUF and he was acting as a partner representing the family. They argued that the remuneration was not earned without detriment to the joint family funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(4),Section 66(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

V.

0.

DHANWATEY v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, M.P. NAGPUR (With Connected Appeal) October 26, 1967 [K. N. WANCllOO, C.J., R. S. BACllAWAT. V. RAMASWAMI, G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE. JJ.) ~nconu·-1ax~Hindu 11ndh·ided Fc.1nily-KarlQ as parlner <>/ fir111--also 1:e111ng salary as 111anagrr utrdfr partnt•rsliip de'"'ed-capita/ co11tributio11 11uiclt• by .~a1ni/y alone-if .i;;a/ar,v inco1ne of fanrily or of ind.\·idual pf.rtncr. Tne appellant in Civil Appeals Sos. 13-72 and 1373, was a Hindu undivided family of \l•hich V v.·as the karta and v.·as. as such, a partner in a bu~incss of lithography and art printing "''ilh other members of the family, including M. who was 1hc karta of the appellant HUF in Civil Appeal No. 1371. Tl>' capilal in tht> c~<c of l>olh V '!lnd M was entirely contributed hy their rcspc~tive famili~s. The partnership was governed by two successive partnership deeds \.\o'hich v.·crc in .similar tenns durinJ? th: relevant period. v.hercby it \ll3S provid·:d. inter alia, that interest "·ou1J he payable to each partner on the amount of capital. th.it the general mana- g·~ment and supervio;;ion of the business "·ould be in the hands o[ V; M wou

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 66(2)

All 55 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →