Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Page 10 of about 35,901 results (0.156 seconds)

Sep 22 1989 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jhabarmal Agarwalla

Court : Guwahati

..... a partner in a firm in his individual capacity as well as a karta of the hindu undivided family. it is aware of the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. it has clearly provided that where the karta is a partner in a firm and it is found as a matter of fact that he ..... the revenue cannot be treated as a partner in a firm. the rights and obligations of the revenue are regulated not by the contract of partnership but by the provisions of the act. it thus falls in the category of 'third parties' and a partner, who is a karta of a hindu undivided family, functions qua ..... the matter of levy and collection of income-tax on a partner of a firm can be regulated by the terms of the contract of partnership ; (3) whether the income-tax act recognises the dual capacity of a partner for the purpose of assessment; and (4) whether the income from a firm can be assessed ..... interpretation of statutes. we, accordingly, hold that the expression 'individual' used in section 64(1) of the act has to be read in the context of income arising to such individual from the membership of the partnership, etc. if the income does not arise to him, then the section would not apply. in a ..... n. choudhury, learned standing counsel for the revenue, submits that section 64(1) of the act comprehends within it a case of a partnership where the karta of a hindu undivided family is a partner. so far as the partnership is concerned, such a partner has to be considered only as an individual and his representative capacity .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2007 (HC)

Pochareddy Radhakrishna Reddy Vs. Gopalakrishna Rice Mill

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(5)ALD162

..... defendant cannot change the state of things during the pendency of the suit. in virendra dresses v. varinder garments : air1982delhi482 , it was held that under section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract against a third party is barred unless the firm is registered and the application of bar under section 69 ..... . p.w.1 is the managing partner of the plaintiff-firm and d.w.1 is the defendant in the suit.10. the bar of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932 in the context of the maintainability of the suit had been argued in elaboration and both courts recorded certain findings in this regard and on appreciation of the language ..... argued in elaboration by the learned counsel representing the appellant is as hereunder:whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar imposed by section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932? 3. the unsuccessful defendant in both the courts below preferred the present second appeal. the respondent herein - the plaintiff sri gopalakrishna rice mill, gudur, represented by its managing partner ..... (2) of the act aforesaid does not extend to the enforcement of rights not arising from contract. section 69 of the indian partnership act, 1932 reads as hereunder:effect of non-registration:-(1) no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 2001 (HC)

Gundu Preemsagar and ors. Vs. Nagabandi Jayashankar

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2002(1)ALD554

..... . dr. k.c. govind rao, 1990 (1) alt 52 (nrc).6. as regards the question of subtenancy, it was submitted having regard to the provisions of section 4 of the indian partnership act, and original tenant had never parted with the possession of the premises as a firm had been constituted with one of the family members. if was further submitted that the ..... a family member in the name of the firm will amount to sub-letting within the meaning of a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960 in the light of the provisions of indian partnership act?2. the revision petition arises out of an order of the learned principal senior civil judge, warangal in rca no. 5 of 1994 confirming an order ..... business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. therefore, the partnership business can be carried by any one of them.38. thus, if a person takes ..... of the apex court, it cannot be said that running of a press as a partnership concern would amount to subletting or parting with the possession. to the same effect is the decision in sri sal baba cloth emporium case. section 4 of the indian partnership act clearly defines 'partnership' to mean the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1978 (SC)

Tolaram Bijoy Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1978SC504; [1978]112ITR750(SC); (1978)2SCC98; [1978]2SCR834; 1978(10)LC180(SC)

..... male issue of the acquirers does not take interest in it by birth (section 221, sub. section 2). if it is partnership property, it is governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932, so that the share of each of the joint acquirers will pass on his death to his heirs, and not ..... whether the property so acquired is joint family property, or whether it is merely the joint property of the joint acquirers, or whether it is ordinary partnership property. if it is joint family property, the male issue of the acquirers take an interest in it by birth (section 221, sub-section ( ..... .3. we then come to the relevant assessment year 1960-61, when tolaram made a similar claim to separate assessment of income derived from, the partnership business in petrol amounting to rs. 21,746/-. the income-tax officer rejected this claim. the appellate assistant commissioner also, on an appeal, after ..... deed of partnership executed by the three brothers on 7th april, 1949. in this deed, it was admitted that the business had been carried on previous to the partition as hindu undivided family business.2. on 19th september, 1950, an application was made under section 25a of the income-tax act, 1922, ..... to record and register the partition. this was done on 17th august, 1954. on 28th march, 1959, the firm of m/s. nathmal tolaram was dissolved and a new firm nathmal tolaram (petrol depot) came into existence. in the assessment year, 1959-60 tolaram claimed that his share in the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 1989 (HC)

Paulson Constructions Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Kerala

Reported in : (1989)80CTR(Ker)202; [1990]181ITR476(Ker)

..... of obtaining the refund as well as for assessment by virtue of sections 41 and 189 of the income-tax act read with section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932.5. section 47 of the partnership act says that on the dissolution of a firm, the authority of each partner to bind the firm and the other ..... which has to be distributed among the partners and, therefore, by virtue of section 47 of the partnership act, the assessee-firm continued to exist for distributing the assets.6. under section 189 of the income-tax act, where any business or profession carried on by a firm has been discontinued or where a firm ..... its partners and for this limited purpose, the firm would continue under section 47 of the partnership act. if the firm continues for this purpose, it will have to be assessed also under section 189 of the income-tax act read with section 41.14. in the light of the above, our answer to the ..... and the assessment or reassessment of such a firm after dissolution can, under section 44 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, be made in the same manner under the income-tax act or the excess profits tax act as if it had not discontinued its business.'11. reference was made on behalf of the revenue ..... as the assessment of its pre-dissolution income is concerned and the assessment or reassessment of such a firm after dissolution under section 44 of the act could be made in the same manner under chapter iv as if it had not discontinued its business. in the present case, therefore, the assessment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 21 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhadra Enterprises (No. 1)

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1997]228ITR645(Ker)

..... which services may be of a variegated character. in the process the apex court proceeds that when a partnership firm comes into existence, it can be predicated of it that it carries on a business, because partnership according to section 4 of the indian partnership act 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. the court made these observations as a distinguishing feature with regard to the activities ..... to carry on a business.'11. it would be seen that the discussion leading to the conclusion that when there is no business, is against the basic provisions of the partnership act (sic). partnership is essentially a relation of persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... existed during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in question. the essence of the definition of section 4 ofthe partnership act is that a partnership is an agreement to share the profits of a business. if we analyse the requirements of section 4, it is very clear that one of the requirements should be that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1989 (HC)

Additional Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kathiresan Pillai

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1989(42)ELT189(Mad)

..... well accepted position of a firm under the law of partnerships. we will quote the relevant passage from 'law of partnership in india' by s. d. singh and j. p. gupta (2nd edition). '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 and is thus more in accordance with the law of scotland than with that of england. but the fact, that a firm possess a distinct personality does not involve that the personality continues unchanged so long as business of firm continues. the indian act ..... filed a suit either in its name or in the names of its partners. under order 30, rule 1, civil procedure code, it is the partnership firm alone which is entitled to file a suit in firm name. therefore, this well laid distinction cannot be obliterated as is sought to ..... like the english act avoids making a firm a corporate body enjoying the right or perpetual succession. it may be noted that a firm is not ..... was not taken note of. the licence was renewed in 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982. it was at that stage, he entered into a partnership in which savitri, kumaragurubaran and k. shanmugavelayudam were taken as partners. even after this, the application in form no. g.s. 6 as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1960 (HC)

N.S.K.R. Karuppan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ar. Vr. S. Somasundaram Chetti ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1961Mad122; [1961]31CompCas378(Mad); (1961)1MLJ323

..... counsel appearing for the appellants referred to us several sections of the indian partnership. act and contended that a firm of partnership is as good as an incorporated company. we are unable to perceive the relevance of the reference to the provisions of the indian partnership act; nor can we appreciate the soundness of the contention that a ..... laws of england, vol. ii, 3rd edn. at page 150, paragraph 277, the said terms are defined as follows :'a 'banker' is an individual, partnership or corporation, whose sole or predominating business is banking, that is the receipt of money on current or deposit account and the payment of cheques drawn by ..... defendants firm it must be taken to be an implied term of the contract that the repayment of the debt was to be in india in indian currency. a point, which was stressed by the learned counsel for the appellants to substantiate the contention that the deposits were repayable only at ..... not be open to the defendant firm to insist upon paying in burmese currency at dabein in respect of a loan obtained by him in indian currency.the court can take judicial notice of the fact that the rupee in burma today is of a different value from the rupee in ..... performed.'in the present case all the contracting parties, the plaintiffs and defendants are permanent residents of india. the amounts deposited were in terms of indian currency. it is true that at the time when the deposits were made burma was a part of india. when one nattukottai chettiar lends money .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2011 (SC)

M/S. Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Commnr. of Customs

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... taken by the tribunal is clearly erroneous. it was contended that since a joint venture is a legal entity with all the trap pings of a partnership under the indian partnership act, 1932, the general principles of the said act were applicable to the joint venture and, therefore, any one of the two partners of the joint venture, viz. gammon and atlanta was competent to ..... companies might join to gether. accordingly, the appeal of nhl was allowed and it was held that it was a joint venture company in the nature of a partnership be tween the indian group of companies and singapore based company which had jointly undertaken the commercial venture by contributing assets and sharing risks. applying the principle oflifting the corpo rate veil , ..... concept of joint venture, the court observed thus: 24. the expressionjoint ventureis more frequently used in the united states. it connotes a legal entity in the nature of a partnership engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contribute assets and share ..... the matter to this court. explaining the concept of joint venture in detail, it was held that a joint venture is a legal entity in the nature of a partnership en gaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contributed assets and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1996 (HC)

M/S. Chandrika Enterprise Vs. G. Vittalla Rao

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1996Kant214; ILR1996KAR1998; 1996(1)KarLJ461

..... for these reasons, this petition may be dismissed. this respondent has also filed an additional objections contending that the petition is bad for non-compliance of section 69 of the indian partnership act. 4. the case of the respondent in h.r.c. 193/94 has been summarised in para 6 of the impugned order. it reads as follows:--'it is true that ..... under the law for a person to formulate partnerships for the purpose of his business. the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that so far as the petitioner-firm chandrika enterprises is concerned, except the petition schedule property, ..... in the impugned order. the learned trial judge has observed therein that the subsequent conductof the partners of the petitioner-firm in acquiring another property sanman delux by constituting another partnership firm raises doubts upon the case of the petitioner. as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner this reasoning is not correct, inasmuch as there is no prohibition ..... is hereby passed in these two revision pelitions.2. the facts which have led to these revision petitions may briefly be stated as follows: --the petitioner which is a partnership firm represented by its managing directors whichis common in all the five petitions, filed the said eviction petitions praying for eviction of the respondents-tenants in different portions of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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