It depends on the facts of the case . In P.N .Krishana Iyer v.CIT ( 1969 ) 73 ITR 539 ( SC) the Honourable Court held that income received by a member of a HUF from a firm or company in which the funds of HUF are invested , even though the income may be partially traceable to personal exertion of the member , is taxable as the income of the HUF , if it is earned by detriment to the family funds or with the aid or assistance of those funds; otherwise it is taxable as the members ’s separate income . One may also refer VSD Dhanwatey v.CIT ( 1968) 68 ITR 365 ( SC) (Five Judges Bench ,) the Court held that on the facts of the case there being a real and sufficient connection between investment from HUF funds into partnership business and remuneration paid to ‘V’, under deed of partnership, salary paid to ‘V’ was to be included in total as income of assessee HUF .
In CIT v .D.C.Shah ( 1969) 73 ITR 692 ( SC) Assessee through his karta was partner of two partnership firms . Department included remuneration received by “D” from said firms in assessment of HUF . However it was found that “D” was man of rich experience in line of business of two firms . From respective partnership deeds it was found that remuneration was paid to “D” for his personal qualification and not because of fact that he invested family fund in firms or represented firms . Court held on facts, it was manifest that there was no real or sufficient connection between investment of joint family funds and remuneration paid by partnership firms to ‘D’ . Accordingly , it was to be held that remuneration of ‘D’ was not earned on account of any detriment to joint family assets and amounts of remuneration received by ‘D’ as managing partner of two partnerships were not assessable as income of HUF.

It depends on the facts of the case . In P.N .Krishana Iyer v.CIT ( 1969 ) 73 ITR 539 ( SC) the Honourable Court held that income received by a member of a HUF from a firm or company in which the funds of HUF are invested , even though the income may be partially traceable to personal exertion of the member , is taxable as the income of the HUF , if it is earned by detriment to the family funds or with the aid or assistance of those funds; otherwise it is taxable as the members ’s separate income . One may also refer VSD Dhanwatey v.CIT ( 1968) 68 ITR 365 ( SC) (Five Judges Bench ,) the Court held that on the facts of the case there being a real and sufficient connection between investment from HUF funds into partnership business and remuneration paid to ‘V’, under deed of partnership, salary paid to ‘V’ was to be included in total as income of assessee HUF .
In CIT v .D.C.Shah ( 1969) 73 ITR 692 ( SC) Assessee through his karta was partner of two partnership firms . Department included remuneration received by “D” from said firms in assessment of HUF . However it was found that “D” was man of rich experience in line of business of two firms . From respective partnership deeds it was found that remuneration was paid to “D” for his personal qualification and not because of fact that he invested family fund in firms or represented firms . Court held on facts, it was manifest that there was no real or sufficient connection between investment of joint family funds and remuneration paid by partnership firms to ‘D’ . Accordingly , it was to be held that remuneration of ‘D’ was not earned on account of any detriment to joint family assets and amounts of remuneration received by ‘D’ as managing partner of two partnerships were not assessable as income of HUF.