TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred the following question for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm as constituted by the deed of partnership dated July 2. 1954, was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? " The assessee-firm applied for registration under section 26A, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the strength ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total number of partners thus exceeded 20 persons and as such the constitution of the firm was illegal, being contrary to section 4 of the Indian Companies Act. In the result, he refused registration of the assessee-firm under section 26A of the Income-tax Act. The assessee went up in appeal. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was urged that the total number of partners was only 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not to result in the dissolution of the firm. Taking into consideration the entire circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the number of partners was 18, the partnership deed did not contravene the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and the assessee was entitled to registration. The Commissioner of Income-tax then made an application to the Tribunal and at his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration on the ground that the total number of the partners and the adult coparceners of the joint families would exceed 20. In the present case there is a clear finding of the Tribunal that there is nothing in the partnership deed to indicate that any of the partners entered into partnership as karta of any undivided family or in a representative capacity. The deed specifically provided that all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
