Partnership Chandrakant Manilal Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, AIR 1992 (SC) it cannot be said that when a coparcener enters into a partnership with the karta of a HUE and contributes only his skill and labour, no contribution of any separate asset belonging to such partner is made to meet the requirement of a valid partnership. Reverting to the facts of the instant case it is noteworthy that it is not the case of the Revenue that the partnership between Chandrakant Manilal Shah as karta of HUE and Naresh Chandrakant was fictitious or invalid on any other ground.

Partnership In Commr. of Income-tax V. Sir Hukumchand Mannalal and Co., (1970) 78 ITR 18 "The Indian Contract Act imposes no disability upon members of a Hindu undivided family in the matter of entering into a contract inter se or with a stranger. A member of a Hindu undivided family has the same liberty of contract as any other individual : it is restricted only in the manner and to the extent provided by the Indian Contract Act. Partnership is under Section 4 of the Partnership Act the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all : if such a relation exists, it will not be invalid merely because two or more of the persons who have so agreed are members of a Hindu undivided family."

Partnership I.P. Munavalli v. Commr. of Income-tax, Mysore, (1969) 74 ITR 529, it was held by the Mysore High Court, after referring to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Lacchmandas, and of Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Ram, :- "So it is clear that the Supreme Court did not dissent from the opinion expressed by the Privy Council that "in respect of their separate or divided property" the coparceners of a Hindujoint family, even though they had not become divided from one another and there had been no partition of the family properties, could become partners of a firm of which the Joint Hindu family represented by its karta is itself a partner. If a partner by putting into the partnership by way of his capital his separate property or the property which he obtained at a partition on division and thus can become a partner with the family represented by its karta, it is difficult to understand how such a partnership cannot come into being and why a coparcener who continues to remain a member of the coparcenary cannot become a working partner of a firm of which he and the family represented by its karta are the partners. In Lachhman Das's case the coparcener placed at the disposal of the firm as his capital his separate property, and in the case of a working partner he contributes his skill or labour or both as the case may be. If the partnership is permissible in one case, it would be difficult to assign any reason for reaching the conclusion that it is not permissible in the other."

Partnership M.V. Karunakaran v. Krishan, AIR 2007 (SC) 1501 The partners as pre-existing co-owners had a definite share of the property. They merely applied their own property for running a business in partnership. On dissolution of the partnership, their right in the property revived. Using of a premises for business purpose would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the premises belonged to the partnership firm.