Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-29-1991
Reported in : (1992)43ITD45(All.)
..... deny registration and that such erroneous action was correctly rectified by the 1d. dc (a). our attention was also invited to section 4 of the indian partnership act for the purpose that the conditions picked up by the 1d. ito for refusing registration were not there in the provision.according to him any interference ..... following conditions are to be satisfied in order that a firm may be entitled to registration: (i) the firm should be constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners; (ii) an application on behalf of and signed by all partners and containing all the particulars as set out ..... ito had not found that any partner was benamidar of other. it was explained that in the assessee's case, there was a duly executed partnership deed, profit and losses were being shared and the business was being carried on on behalf of the partners. it was pointed out that since these ..... was framed on 28-3-1988, on total income of rs. 50,630 under section 143(3) of the income-tax act, 1961.4. in the present case, a deed of partnership was drawn on 15-3-1984, between raj kumar agarwal as karta of his huf, smt. rita kumari and km.smita arora ..... the terms and conditions of the instrument of partnership in the accounting year. once such conditions are satisfied, it is the obligation of the ito under the act to extend the benefit of registration and allow the firm to enjoy the benefits provided by the act.15. in the light of our preceding discussions .....Tag this Judgment!