Skip to content


Messrs. Kalwant Singh Gurdial Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 11 of 1960
Reported in[1962]45ITR569(P& H)
AppellantMessrs. Kalwant Singh Gurdial Singh
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax, Punjab.
Cases ReferredR. C. Mitter and Sons v. Commissioner of Income
Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........of partnership within the meaning of those words in section 26a of the income-tax act and entitled to registration for the purpose of the income-tax act for the assessment year 1955-56 ?'it is not necessary to go into elaborate discussion as a similar question has been answered in the affirmative by a recent full bench of this court in niadar mal jagdish parshad v. commissioner of income-tax. the question for decision by the high court in niadar mal jagdish parshads case was :'whether a firm which comes into existence by a verbal agreement is entitled to be registered under section 26a, if on the date of the application for registration the terms and conditions of the partnership have been reduced to writing and application for registration has been accompanied by such an.....
Judgment:

The question of law referred to this court by the Tribunal is :

'Whether the applicant firm which was formed by an oral agreement on April 1, 1954, on terms and conditions reduced to writing on the 8th April, 1954, was one constituted under an instrument of partnership within the meaning of those words in section 26A of the Income-tax Act and entitled to registration for the purpose of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1955-56 ?'

It is not necessary to go into elaborate discussion as a similar question has been answered in the affirmative by a recent full bench of this court in Niadar Mal Jagdish Parshad v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The question for decision by the High Court in Niadar Mal Jagdish Parshads case was :

'Whether a firm which comes into existence by a verbal agreement is entitled to be registered under section 26A, if on the date of the application for registration the terms and conditions of the partnership have been reduced to writing and application for registration has been accompanied by such an instrument ?'

This question was answered in the affirmative by the full bench. Reference may also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in R. C. Mitter and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax which was to similar effect.

The question referred is, therefore, answered in the affirmative. The assessee shall be entitled to his costs.

Reference answered in the affirmative.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //