9911796707
TMI BlogRegistration of firm u/s 184(7) of Income Tax act 1961.X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xmi Narain vs. CIT(68-ITR-696) should not be followed in the States other than the U.P State and Board's instructions dated 3.1.62 would continue to be followed as before. The Board then felt and still feel that the execution of a fresh instrument of partnership on attaining the majority of a minor and opting to become a partner is merely a technicality. In such circumstances, there is no change i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partnership had a share of 23% in the profits. There was no clause in the deed of partnership specifying the proportion in which the three adult partners were to share the losses. The question was whether the firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme court held that the ITO before allowing the application for registration must be in a position to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposition. Further the second proposition also did not apply, because, even if the adult partners were to bear the losses in proportion to their respective shares in the profits, the amount of loss in the minor's share would still remain undistributed. 'will the partners between them bear this loss equally, or to the extent of their individual shares?' To this the instrument of partnership did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he concession given in the Board's Instruction No.26. The other one of no change in the shares of the partners could be satisfied only when the original deed suggests the manner in which losses should be allocated among the partners including the minor who has since become fulfledged partner. In other words, unless the shares of the partners in losses as a result of the minor becoming major could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
