Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: kerala Year: 1963 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.023 seconds)

Aug 12 1963 (HC)

Kerala Road Lines Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-12-1963

Reported in : AIR1964Ker251; [1964]51ITR711(Ker)

..... mala fides or that the registrar has not followed the prescribed procedure.(ii) it must follow that there was no registration of the firm under the indian partnership act, 1932, during the previous year 1957-58 and that the question referred has to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. we do ..... a case where the statement delivered has been returned by the registrar and section 58 itself does not come into operation.10. section 58 of the indian partnership act, 1932, came up for consideration in girdhari lal v. spedding dinga singh and co., air 1954 him pra 52. the court said:'the satisfaction ..... air 1935 all 898 it was contended that registration is effected as soon as there has been a compliance with the provisions of section 58 of the indian partnership act, 1932. kendall, j., repelled the argument and said:'if section 58 stood alone, this argument might have some force, but section 59 shows that ..... day was returned by the registrar on the ground that it was not in order and we cannot but hold that there was no registration under the indian partnership act, 1932, before the end of the previgus year 1957-58.7. in (firm) ram prasad-thakur prasad v. (firm) kamta prasad-sita ram, ..... was returned on the ground that it was not duly stamped and for lack of some of the particulars prescribed. 5. section 59 of the indian partnership act, 1932, provides that when the registrar is satisfied that the provisions of section 58 have been duly complied with, he shall record an entry of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 1963 (HC)

Thrikkandiyur Padinharekkara Kunjikutty Amma's son Gopala Menon Vs. Ka ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-21-1963

Reported in : AIR1964Ker81

..... of the privy council has characterised the status of a firm in indian law in bhagawanji morarji goculdas v. alembic chemical works co. ltd., air 1948 pc 100:'it is true that the indian partnership act goes further than the english partnership act, 1890, in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from ..... the persons constituting it; the law in india in that respect being more in accordance with the law of scotland, than with that of england.'though in a lesser degree than the indian ..... law, english law too retains for certain purposes 'the notion of the existence of the firm as a separate entity from the existence of its partners.' jessel m. r, laid stress on this, in order to snow 'that a partner does not act as agent in ..... of railway servants, 1901 ac 426 said:'now it is undoubtedly true that a trade union is neither a corporation, nor an individual, nor a partnership between a number of individuals; but this does not by any means conclude the case .... now, the legislature is giving a trade union the capacity ..... of persons taken collectively.' a legal entry has got a personality ot its own, for otherwise why can it a legal entity. in lindly on partnership, page 23, there occurs the following description of a corporation, that seems to me to show that a tarwad has greater attinity with a corporation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1963 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Hajee Hassan Yacoob Sait (Decea ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-26-1963

Reported in : [1964]53ITR5(Ker)

..... or indirectly -(i) from the membership of the wife in a firm of which her husband is a partner;(ii) from the admission of the minor ton the benefits of partnership in a firm of which such individual is a partner;(iii) from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the wife by the husband otherwise than for adequate consideration or in ..... geevarghese koshy as managing trustee of jeejambai trust is taxable in the hands of the assessee either under section 16(1)(c) or section 16(3)(b) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 ?'counsel for the department submits that he does not propose to depend on section 16(1)(c) and that we need consider the case only with the reference ..... the question for determination was whether the said sum of rs. 410 could be included in the total income of the assessee under section 16(3)(b) of the indian income-tax act 1922. chagla c.j. said :'....the contention of mr. joshi is that in this case you have a transfer of assets to trustees, the transfer is admittedly for the ..... m. s. menon c.j. - this is a reference by the income-tax appellate tribunal, madras bench, under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. the assessment of the year concerned is 1957-58 and the accounting period, 1131 m.e. or the twelve months ended august 16, 1956. the question referred is :'whether ..... the seal of the high court and the signature of the registrar will be forwarded to the appellate tribunal as required by sub-section (5) of section 66 of the indian income-tax act, 1922. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1963 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Morning Star Bus Service.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-18-1963

Reported in : [1963]49ITR927(Ker)

..... of the court, said :'now what are the facts and circumstances of this case we have a legal entity - the partnership firm consisting of eleven partners. we have a different legal entity constituted by the private limited company. undoubtedly, the two entities are different in the eye of the law ..... whether the difference between the two figures, namely, rs. 45,698 is assessable to tax under the second proviso to section 10(2) (vii) of the indian income-tax act, 1922.sub-section (2) of section 10 provides that the profits or gains of a business, profession or vocation should be computed after making the allowances specified ..... determination is whether it is in that strict and legal sense that the word 'sale' is employed in the second proviso to section 10(2) (vii) of the act.the identical question came up for consideration before the high court of bombay in rogers & co. v. commissioner of income-tax. chagla c.j., delivering the judgment ..... appellate tribunal, madras bench, under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. the question referred is :'whether the sum of rs. 45,698 is assessable to tax under the provisions of the second proviso to section 10(2) (vii) of the income-tax act ?'the assessment year with which we are concerned of five members, ..... and the signature of the registrar will be forwarded to the appellate tribunal as required by sub-section (5) of section 66 of the indian income-tax act, 1922.reference answered in the negative. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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