Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act 1932 section 17 rights and duties of partners Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat guwahati

May 23 2003 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shri Debajit Bezbarua

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (2004)89ITD387(Gau.)

..... competition as there is clear conflict of interests. section 16 of indian partnership act, 1932, seeks to remedy precisely this kind of mischief, because the partner is an agent of the firm and he has to safeguard the best interest of the firm. clause 11 of the partnership deed, section 16(b) of the indian partnership act and section 88 of indian trust act read together would show that the assessee is ..... the firm. 2) clause 11 of the partnership deed (supra), section 16(b) of the indian partnership act (annex-5, pp. 7 of paper-book dated 5 ..... business was supply of 'any commodities'. the respondent shut out any competition from the partnership firm, despite his full knowledge. this results in unfair competition, as there is clear conflict of interests. section 16 of the indian partnership act, 1932, seeks to remedy precisely this kind of mischief, because, partner is an agent of the firm and he has to safeguard the best interest of ..... in deleting the same and accordingly we find no error in the order of the cit(a) on this account. the ground taken by the revenue is, therefore, rejected.17. in the cross objection the assessee has merely supported the order of the cit(a) and in view of our above decision in the revenue's appeal the ground .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 1987 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Tuli Veneer Plywood Industries

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1988)24ITR345(Gau.)

..... been argued that even if there is an implied agreement to admit the partner on attaining majority, the partnership was not entitled to registration as it makes the minor liable for the losses during the period km. sangita remained a minor. in this context, he referred to mukherjee's indian partnership act, 1976, edition, pages 249-251.5. in reply, the assessee's learned counsel ..... majority. this fact was, however, not recorded in the partnership deed. that itself, in our opinion, cannot invalidate the partnership deed as on the date the deed was executed the parties to the contract were legally entitled to enter into a valid agreement. the right to receive the share of profit arising from the partnership deed accrued only at the end of the accounting ..... next after the date of attaining majority could be granted registration under section 185(1)(a). it was held that under the provisions of the partnership act, a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership had two options open to him on attaining majority ; (i) he should either elect to become a partner in the firm, or (ii) he should repudiate or elect not to ..... year on which date the accounts have been drawn up by the partnership firm. in this context, we may refer to the hon'ble supreme court decision in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1991 (TRI)

Rameshwar Prasad Goenka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1991)37ITD112(Gau.)

..... on the death and was includible in the estate and, accordingly, relief under section 33(7)(n) of the estate duty act was allowable.6. it is also submitted that similar would be the position where the residential house is reflected in the assets of the partnership firm and the partners were deemed to be the owners of the firm's property for the purpose ..... , a partnership firm is not a legal entity as the firm name is only a compendious way of describing the partners collectively. similar claim for exemption under section 5(i)(iv), by the assessee partners was upheld by the hon'ble gauhati high court in the case of tarachand agarwalla 2 g.l.r. 129.17. but in the case of huf, the situation is ..... in particular in respect of section 9 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, the hon'ble supreme court in the case of r.b. jodha mal kuthiala v. cit [1971] 82 itr 570 has observed that for the purposes of the said act, the owner must the person who can exercise the rights of the owner and not on behalf of the owner but ..... different as the huf itself is an assessee under the wealth-tax act and in that .....

Tag this Judgment!


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