Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat guwahati Page 1 of about 3 results (0.049 seconds)

May 23 2003 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shri Debajit Bezbarua

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

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

..... account for and pay to the firm all profits made by him in that business/transaction." 8.4. from reading of section 16 of the indian partnership act we find that this section starts with "subject to contact between the partners". sub-clause (a) of section 16 makes a partner liable to ..... 36 itr 18 (sc). 8.3. since the claim of the assessee is on the basis of clause 11 of the partnership deed, section 16(b) of the indian partnership act and section 88 of the indian trust act, therefore, it is necessary to take note of the same:- "16. personal profits earned by partners - subject to contract ..... 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 statutorily bound to make over his private profit from m/s. altron ..... further addition of rs. 7,766/- without basis is totally unjustified." reliance was also placed that in view of section 16 of indian partnership act read with clause 11 of the partnership deed of m/s. p & d traders dated 31-03-93 and the case laws as submitted in the written submissions referred ..... accounted for and made over the private profit so earned to m/s. p & d traders in terms of specific provision of the partnership deed and section 16 of the indian partnership act, 1932.the profit from proprietary business m/s. altron electronics stood diverted by overriding title to m/s. p & d traders for .....

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.)

..... 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 supporting the aac's order brought to our notice the recitation made in the deed that an ..... previous year 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 ..... registration having been found to be in order, the requirements of section 185(1)(a) of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act'), had been satisfied.6. the partnership deed as available from the ito's records reveal that as per oral agreement a partnership was formed w.e.f. 1-1-1981. the recital to that effect reads as follows : whereas the partners ..... hereto to the first part to fifth part made an oral agreement and formed a partnership between themselves with effect from .....

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.)

..... also by the hon'ble madhya pradesh high court in the case of jagdish chandra grover v. cwt [1985] 156 itr 560, that under the indian law, 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 ..... of properties vivifies and specifies such shares in separate ownership.12. for the purpose of computation of income under the income-tax act and 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 ..... allowed in the hands of the partners though the property might have been owned by the partnership firm. this was after considering rule 2 of the wealth-tax rules read with section 2(m) of the wealth-tax act. in such cases, it was held that the firm is not an wealth-tax assessee and ..... the revenue, the analogy cannot be drawn as sought to be made out on behalf of the assessee. the present case is under the wealth-tax act and the provision regarding exemption has been specified. in fact the charging and machinery provisions of these two enactments are separate. in a slightly different situation ..... its normal ambit, an extended meaning on account of the special definition is to be found in explanation 2 to section 2(75) of the estate duty act. in this decision, the hon'ble supreme court has distinguished the earlier decision in the case of kancharla kesava rao (supra) at page 101, it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

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