Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: guwahati Year: 1975 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.027 seconds)

May 19 1975 (HC)

Mahabir Prasad Kishanlal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : May-19-1975

..... is not a genuine firm in existence the income-tax officer is required to consider the validity of the deed of partnership. if such a deed of partnership is invalid in law offending any of the provisions of the indian contract act or the indian partnership act, 1932, the income-tax officer may legally hold that the registration was obtained without there being a firm in existence ..... partnership. it is thus found that the agreement of partnership in question is contrary to the relevant provisions of the indian contract act and the indian partnership act itself. that being so, the partnership deed is invalid, and, therefore, the income-tax officer in exercising his power for cancellation is justified ..... behalf of the minors. it is not a caseof the partners agreeing to admit some minors to the benefits of the partnership as provided under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the indian partnership act. the partnership in terms has sought to make the minors also full fledged partners and it has been stated that their respective fathers have agreed to enter into the ..... and such registration is liable to be cancelled in exercise of powers under rule 6b.12. section 4 of the indian partnership act defines 'partnership' as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 1975 (HC)

Phulchand Ratanlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : May-14-1975

..... a partnership were not considered as discussed hereinabove. but some materials were considered which are not very relevant for the purpose. some circumstances were considered which may at best ..... the returns of income submitted for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63.6. it is common case that a partnership firm may be formed even without a written document. section 4 of the indian partnership act defines 'partnership' as follows: 'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any ..... of them acting for all.'7. thus, to form a partnership there must be an agreement between the partners to share the profits of ..... constitute a partnership-firm it is not necessary that there must always be a written document putting therein the terms of the partnership. on a consideration of the materials on record we find that, in arriving at the conclusion that the assessee could not establish its status as a firm, the legal requirements under section 4 of the indian partnership act to constitute .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1975 (HC)

Ladhuram Laxmi Narayan Vs. Income-tax Officer, Additional a Ward and o ...

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Aug-08-1975

..... 10, 1971, issued to him under section 148 of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), by the income-tax officer, respondent no. 1. 2. the petitioner is a partnership-firm registered under the indian partnership act having its head office at gauhati. for the assessment year 1962-63, ..... the petitioner filed a return showing its total income during the accounting year 1961-62, ram navami year 2018. notice under section 143(2) of the act was issued to the ..... been assessed at too low a rate ; or (c) where such income has been made the subject of excessive relief trader this act or under the indian income-tax act, 1922 ; or (d) where excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed. explanation 2.--production before the income-tax officer of ..... 63.' 14. in calcutta discount co. ltd. v. income-tax officer : [1961]41itr191(sc) while considering section 34(1 )(a) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, the supreme court has observed at page 377 as follows : 'we have, therefore, come to the conclusion that while the duty of ..... said ' yes '.23. we have already found that the first ground given by the income-tax officer in his report praying for sanction for acting under section 148 is admittedly a mistaken ground and, therefore, non-existent. that being so, the satisfaction of the additional commissioner in the instant .....

Tag this Judgment!


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