Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: guwahati Year: 1972 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.017 seconds)

May 26 1972 (HC)

Tolaram Bijoy Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : May-26-1972

..... will pass by survivorship, but the male issue of the acquirers do not take interest in it by birth. if it is partnership property, it is governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, so that the share of each of the joint acquirers will pass on his death to his heirs,and not by ..... concerned showing the business to be a joint family business. even without taking note of the above conduct, the tribunal took note of the deed of partnership as well as the deed of partition, mentioned above, wherein ' there is an open solemn admission that the members have been treating the business as ..... previous year, rejected the assessee's claim. that is how the matter has now come to us on a reference under section 66(1} of the indian income-tax act, 1922. 6. the question of law referred by the tribunal on the application of the assessee is as follows: ' whether, on the facts ..... vested in equal proportion in all the parties.' on september 19, 1950, an application was made for passing an order under section 25a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, to record the partition. the income-tax officer allowed the partition by his order dated august 17, 1954, with effect from the last ..... as members of a joint family, but as members of an ordinary trade partnership resting on contract, in which case the property will be deemed to be partnership property.' the supreme court had to consider a similar question under the wealth-tax act in n.v. narendranath v. commissioner of wealth-tax, [1969] 74 i .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 1972 (HC)

Sikaria Sons and Company and anr. Vs. Superintendent of Taxes and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jun-22-1972

..... . the facts of c.r. no. 214 alone may be noted.2. the petitioner no. 1 (briefly petitioner) is a registered firm under the indian partnership act and runs a roller flour mill at gauhati and the petitioner no. 2, one of the partners, manages the affairs of the firm. the government supplies ..... by the superintendent. the learned advocate-general submits that, as a matter of practice, the commissioner after delegating powers under various sections of the act does not exercise the same powers. we are not required to consider this aspect of the matter in that light. it is sufficient to point ..... not required to do assessments at the base. although the power resides in the commissioner, in order to carry on the tax administration smoothly, the act provides for delegation of his powers. no objection has been made with regard to the power of delegation conferred on the commissioner. although at one ..... superintendent. by rule 71, the officer to whom powers may be delegated under section 50 shall exercise the powers subject to the provisions of the act and the rules thereunder and to such restrictions as may be imposed by the commissioner in delegating the powers. it is, therefore, clear that ..... the superintendent of taxes on 11th november, 1967, issued a notice to the petitioner under section 19-a of the assam sales tax act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the act'), stating that from the information in his possession he had reasons to believe that during the return period ending on 30th september, 1965, .....

Tag this Judgment!


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