Cit Vs. Prem Chand and Sons

counsels: a.n. mahajan, for the revenue vikram gulati, for the assessee head note: income tax huf--assessment after partitionheld: tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the cit(a) excluding the share income from service station from the hands of the huf as partial partition of huf had already taken place. income tax act, 1961 s.171 in the allahabad high court v.m. sahai & krishna murari, jj. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammadorderwe have heard shri a.n. mahajan, learned counsel for appellant and shri vikram. gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. this is an itr under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the appellate assistant commissioner of income tax excluding the share income from m/s. shamli service station, shamli from the hands of the huf v. prem chand & sons ?'3. the aforesaid question referred by the tribunal is covered by the decision of this court in cit v. brahma swarup & sons (2002) 253 itr 604. it has been held that partial partition between the groups of huf members was valid and the question is covered by the aforesaid decision.4. the question referred to us, therefore, is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.