Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat bangalore Year: 1983 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.033 seconds)

Oct 14 1983 (TRI)

First Income-tax Officer Vs. Dr. P. Vittal Bhat

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

Decided on : Oct-14-1983

Reported in : (1983)6ITD560(Bang.)

..... said that the definition of business given in section 45 of the partnership act, 1890 (53 & 54 vict. c. 39), was an extended definition intended for the purpose of that act only. section 45 of that act says : . . . the expression "business" includes every trade, occupation, or profession.' section 2(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932, also defines 'business' thus : the observation of rowlatt, j. ..... products. question arose whether assembling of imported parts into a finished chassis amounted to the manufacture or production of an article within the meaning of section i5c of the indian income-tax act, 1922. the bombay high court held that it amounted to manufacture or production of an article. it was observed as under : thus looked at from any point ..... other. it is a complex of ideas and methods of practical execution and, therefore, must necessarily involve both tangible and intangible considerations. the words'industrial undertaking' in the indian income-tax act, 1922, should, in our view, be interpreted to mean any venture or enterprise which a person undertakes to do and which has relation to some industry or has ..... in this appeal is whether a radiologist who had installed x-ray unit in his clinic would be entitled to investment allowance under section 32a of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act').2. the respondent-assessee is a consulting radiologist. he receives salary from some hospitals as a consultant radiologist. he also receives consultation charges from his own patients. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 1983 (TRI)

J. Srinivasan Vs. First Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

Decided on : Sep-07-1983

Reported in : (1984)8ITD659(Bang.)

..... .the learned departmental representative relied on section 6 of the indian partnership act, 1932, and argued that the cumulative effect of the various provisions in the partnership deed pointed out that the lady had been assigned a dominant role in the affairs of the partnership and should, therefore, have been considered as a partner ..... that rajendranath, the husband of vimla kapur, provided the finances and should also have been considered as a partner and as he had not signed the partnership deed, the firm was not entitled to registration. in the present case, smt. sakkubai cannot be considered as a financier of the firm. the ..... corpn. (supra) are different. that was a case where there was a difference between two judges. one of the judges held that the partnership was not genuine in view of the extraordinary powers given to vimla kapur regarding the financial control to the exclusion of all other partners. the third ..... counsel for the assessee, submitted that the commissioner erroneously presumed that smt. sakkubai was a partner by interpreting clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the partnership deed dated 28-12-1975, to mean that she enjoyed the status of a partner.smt. sakkubai was interested in protecting the goodwill of the firm ..... an unregistered firm.2. the facts are as follows. one shri j. srinivasan, practising as a chartered accountant, died on 11-5-1975. a partnership deed was executed on 28-12-1975 coming into effect from 12-5-1975 whereby shri h.v. gowthama and shri k.r. srinivasulu, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1983 (TRI)

Wealth-tax Officer Vs. M.L. Janardhana Setty and Sons

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT

Decided on : Apr-30-1983

Reported in : (1984)9ITD776(Bang.)

..... in the affirmative and in favour of the this decision it was noticed that section 20 of the 1957 act is similar to section 25a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, which did not specifically deal with cases of partial partition as it has been done under section 171 of the 1961 ..... coparceners of this family. the other contention of the assessee was that in a partial partition where no order under section 20 of the wealth-tax act, 1957 ('the act') is necessary, the metes and bounds partition is not necessary and the coparceners can hold the properties as tenants-in-common without actually partitioning the ..... common, while continuing to be joint in respect of other properties of the family. the tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that section 20 of the act did not apply to cases of partial partition as to property, that the properties in question did not belong to the huf on the valuation dates and ..... family continued to be joint for other purposes in view of the decision of the privy council referred to above, no order under section 20 of the act was necessary and in fact section 20 was not attracted at all. section 20 applies to a case where the 'joint family property has been partitioned ..... act. a reference was made to the decision of the privy council in sir sunder singh majithia v. cit [1942] 10 itr 457 wherein it was held that section 25a did not prohibit members of a huf from entering into a partnership in respect of a portion of .....

Tag this Judgment!

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