TMI Blog1977 (4) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partnership only by a registered deed, and in the absence of such a deed the building remained the individual property of Shri K. D. Pandey ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire value of the building was assessable in the hands of the assessee, individual ? " The facts of the case have been set out in the statement of the case and it is unnecessary to repeat them here. Suffice it to say that the assessee who was running a hotel as its sole proprietor entered into a partnership with his son under a deed of partnership dated April 16, 1966, to run the same business. In that firm his share of profits and losses was 75 per cent. In the wealth-tax assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquired for the firm. The principal question that arises for determination in this reference is whether the assessee brought the building in which he was carrying on the hotel business, into the stock or capital of the firm. Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines transfer of property as an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself and one or more other living persons. Thus, a person can transfer a property from himself to himself and one or more other living persons. Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, provides, inter alia, that a non-testamentary instrument which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Firm Ram Sahay Mall Rameshwar Dayal v. Bishwanath Prasad AIR 1963 Pat 221. Their Lordships observed thus at page 223 : " The legal position, therefore, appears to be that no written or registered document is necessary for an individual to contribute any land or immovable property as a contribution against his share of the capital of a new partnership business. In Commmissioner of Income-tax v. Janab N. Hyath Batcha Sahib [1969] 72 ITR 528 (Mad) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that when a partner brings in certain items into the partnership at the time of its formation, such items become the property of the partnership and that such change of own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t arose for determination in that case was whether a property admittedly once owned by the firm as such, ceased to be so owned by it by reason of certain entries made in the account books of the firm. A Division Bench of this court took the view that the partners of a firm can convert an immovable property belonging to the firm into personal property of any of them by means only of an instrument in writing, that mere entries in the books of accounts of the firm do not have the effect of converting such property of the firm into the personal property of any of the partners and that such property, therefore, continues to remain the property of the firm despite such entry. In the aforesaid case the question whether a partner can bring his im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
