Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1969 (4) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... such opportunity and this judgment is being delivered in supersession of the judgment we delivered on the 4th February, 1969. This was a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act for the determination of the following question : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act could not be granted to the firm ? " The application for registration of the firm under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act was refused by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee-firm was not entitled to registration. There was a further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed as capital, and interest was charged on the entire balance standing to the credit of the respective partners and that no interest was charged during the accounting period for 1959-60. Registration was refused by the income-tax authorities on the ground that the terms of the instrument had not been given effect to by the partners. It was contended by the learned counsel for the assessee before the Tribunal that inasmuch as the income-tax authorities had not doubted the genuineness of the firm the fact that there was a slight variation in the proportion of the capital introduced by the partners from their profit sharing ratio, did not invalidate the partnership. It was further contended that the fact that no interest had been charged in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ith the terms of the instrument ; and, lastly, (5) That the partnership must have been genuine, and must, actually have existed in conformity with the terms and conditions of the instrument. " At page 204 the Supreme Court observed : " As a result of the above discussion, the conclusion is reasonably clear that unless the partnership business was carried on in accordance with the terms of an instrument of partnership which was operative during the accounting year, it cannot be registered in respect of the following assessment year. " With these principles in the background we have to examine the present deed of partnership. Clause 4 of the partnership deed provides : " 4. The share of each partner in the net profit and loss of the part .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which the capital is to be contributed by the partners and the proportion in which they are to be entitled to it when contributed, ought also to be carefully expressed. " Learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Sahabuddin Mohammad Raza (Siwan) v. Commissioner of Income-tax . In that case there was no separate capital account of the partners and share capital was contributed by some of the partners originally. It was held that that was no ground for refusing registration of the firm. In our opinion, that case does not help the assessee in the facts of the instant reference. It does not appear that there was any provision like clause 6 of the present case. In that case also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case of R. C. Mitter & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, especially the observation of the Supreme Court at page 204 of the judgment, as mentioned hereinbefore, was not cited. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Madanlal Chhaganlal. There the court held that the firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the basis of their application, notwithstanding that subsequent to the date of application, in making a division of the profits, the partners failed to credit interest for their respective capital investment. The court observed at page 479 : " The mere fact that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates