TMI Blog1976 (7) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57, consisting of, as appearing from the preamble of the deed, dated April 5, 1957, four partners, namely, (1) Parsram Dhamanlal Mariwalla, (2) Madhavji Khimji, (3) Laxman Velji, and (4) Messrs. Jay Vishin Co., partners 1 and 4 having one-third share each and the other partners having one-sixth share each therein. The partners were to share the losses in the same proportion. Clause 4 of the deed related to capital contribution. Clause 13 thereof provided for control over financial matters and clause 16 provided for contingency arising on the death of any partner. In the agreed statement of the case it is clearly stated that the partnership deed was signed by Parsram D. Mariwalla, Madhavji Khimji, Laxman Velji and Vishindas Lekhraj and Jaw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Address admit- capital or commis- balance Remarks tance loans sion from of firm profits --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parsram D. 27, Western 5-4-57 6% Rs. 300/- 1/3rd Mariwalla India House, P.M. Road, Fort, Bombay. Madhavji Kliimji do. do. 6% Rs. 300/- 1/6th Laxman Velji do. do. 6% Rs. 300/- 1/6th Vishindas Lekhraj do. do. 6% Rs. nil 1/6th Jawahar Lekhraj do. do. 6% Rs. nil 1/6th --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessment year 1959-60 P.D. Mariwala 6 a/4 Sindhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of this court in the case of Chhotalal Devchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1958] 34 ITR 351 (Bom). He took the view that the firm of New Life Construction Company was duly constituted under a valid partnership deed and the shares of the partners were specified in the partnership deed. According to him, the Income-tax Officer was, therefore, not justified in refusing registration of the firm for the assessment year 1958-59 and not granting renewal for the assessment year 1959-60. He directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the firm for the first year and renewal for the second year. In an appeal by the revenue the Tribunal confirmed the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal in its order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , fairly conceded before us that both in the order of the Tribunal as well as in the statement of the case it is clearly mentioned that the deed of partnership dated April 5, 1957, is signed by all the five partners including the two partners of Jay Vishin Co. There is no controversy in the present case that the firm that had sought registration and renewal for the two relevant years was a genuine firm and in fact it has been duly registered for the subsequent years. If the deed of partnership dated April 5, 1957, is signed by all the five partners, as stated in the order of the Tribunal as well as the statement of the case, then merely because they are described as partners of the firm of Jay Vishin Co. makes no difference. It is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeds of the two firms which were on the file of the department were relied upon. There was a change in the constitution of the partnership by the death of one of the individuals, and a fresh partnership deed was executed on November 29, 1954, on the basis of which an application for registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act was made for the assessment year 1954-55. Registration was refused for that year on the grounds : (i) that it was not a valid partnership, as it was constituted of two firms and an individual, (ii) that in the books of account of the partnership the profits were credited not to the names of each constituent individual but only to the names of the firms, and (iii) that the deed of partnership did not specify th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present case and both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were justified in relying upon the same for granting registration and renewal of the firm. Though it appears from the order of the Tribunal that some High Courts might have taken a different view, so far as we are concerned we are bound by the decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction unless our attention is drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court where a contrary view is taken. Mr. Joshi has not even informed us that the Supreme Court has taken a view contrary to the one taken by this court in Chhotalal Devchand's case [1958] 34 ITR 351 (Bom). In that view of the matter, both having regard to the particular facts of this case as well as the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
