Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Murlidhar and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1986]160ITR885(Raj)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 185
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentMurlidhar and Co.
Advocates: R.N. Surolia, Adv.
Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect -..........constituted and it was entitled to registration under section 185 of the income-tax act, 1961? '2. it would not be necessary to give the facts of the case in detail as mr. surolia, learned counsel for the department, rightly and frankly conceded that the above question of law is concluded by a decision of this court in gulraj poowamchand v. cit . in the above case, it was held that it is permissible for the karta of a hindu undivided family, representing the hindu undivided family, to enter into a partnership with any other member of the hindu undivided family, or any stranger who is taken in partnership even as working partner and even if they did not contribute any separate or individual property of their own.3. we agree with the view taken in gulraj poonamchand v. cit .4. in view of.....
Judgment:

N.M. Kasliwal, J.

1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:

' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee-firm was validly constituted and it was entitled to registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? '

2. It would not be necessary to give the facts of the case in detail as Mr. Surolia, learned counsel for the Department, rightly and frankly conceded that the above question of law is concluded by a decision of this court in Gulraj Poowamchand v. CIT . In the above case, it was held that it is permissible for the karta of a Hindu undivided family, representing the Hindu undivided family, to enter into a partnership with any other member of the Hindu undivided family, or any stranger who is taken in partnership even as working partner and even if they did not contribute any separate or individual property of their own.

3. We agree with the view taken in Gulraj Poonamchand v. CIT .

4. In view of these circumstances, the question referred to above is answered in the affirmative.

5. There will be no order as to costs as nobody has appeared on. behalf of the assessee.


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