Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Page 9 of about 37,554 results (0.116 seconds)

Nov 29 1984 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Phabiomal and Sons

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [1986]158ITR773(AP)

..... order in writing refusing to register the firm.' 6. 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' are not defined under the income-tax act. but, sub-section (2) of section 2 says that they have the same meaning as assigned under indian partnership act. 7. section 4 of the partnership act defines 'partnership' as : ''partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a ..... is seen from this definition that partnership involves an agreement to carry on business. the expression ..... business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.' 8. it ..... the activity is not a business activity. the tribunal held to the contra observing that it comes under 'occupation' within the meaning of section 2(b) of the partnership act. on a reference, it was held by the madras high court that the activity of taking premises on lease, putting up constructions as annexe thereto and letting them out .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1964 (SC)

Devji @ Deviji Shivji Vs. Maganlal R. Athrana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1965SC139; [1964]7SCR564

..... in order to bind a firm by an act or an instrument executed by a partner on behalf of the firm, the act should be done or the instrument should be executed in the name of the ..... was a benamidar for the partnership firm. it is only this case which the respondents had to meet, and in our judgment, it would not be proper to permit the appellant to make out an entirely new case at this stage. apart from that, s. 22 of the indian partnership act, 1932, clearly provides that ..... case. in that case also, it was found that the liability arose upon a contract entered into by one of the partners in connection with the partnership business. this case is, therefore, similar to the one just referred to above. the third case relied upon is pandiri veeranna v. grandi veerabhadraswami ilr ..... they came into possession of the demised colliery immediately after the execution of the sub-lease, and wants this court to infer from this that the partnership had already come into existence before the lease was obtained. this, however, has never been the case of the appellant in the courts below. the ..... respondent 4 & 5, who are father and son, admitted the appellant's contention that the lease was obtained by respondent no. 4 on behalf of the partnership firm, but their contention was that they surrendered their lease-hold interest to the appellant on november 1, 1950, which was accepted by him, and that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 1986 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jacobs

Court : Kerala

Reported in : (1987)59CTR(Ker)300; [1986]160ITR570(Ker)

..... it. where there is no business to be done, there can be no question of partnership. the existence of a business is a ' sine qua non ' of partnership. section 4 of the indian partnership act (9 of 1932) defines ' partnership ' as 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. in mollwo march & co. v. court of ..... wards 10 beng lr 312 (pc), the privy council observed ' to constitute a partnership ..... any business nor was earning any business income does not entail its dissolution, nor is it one of the modes of dissolution contemplated by the partnership act. a temporary cessation of business activity does not result in the annihilation of the firm itself, as contended for by counsel for the revenue ..... to exist for the reason thas it had no business or business income during that period. 10. as per section 39 of the partnership act, 'the dissolution of a partnership between all the partners of a firm is called the ' dissolution of thefirm '.' dissolution can be by agreement of all partners or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1994 (HC)

Parmanand Vadilal Vasani and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1994Guj206; (1994)2GLR1634

..... at annexure h to this petition.3. it appears that the competent authority remained totally ignorant of the relevant provisions contained in the indian partnership act, 1932 ('the partnership act' for brief). the position of law emerging therefrom would be that, when a partnership consists of only two partners, on the death of either partner, the firm automatically stands dissolved as there could not be a ..... remain undivided.4. the appellate authority appears to have misdirected himself by erronneously holding that, since the partnership was not registered under the partnership act, its existence could not be recognised. i wish the appellate authority had kept in mind the relevant provisions contained in section 69 of the partnership act before reaching such erroneous conclusion. it is needless to say that registration of a ..... partnership firm thereunder is not compulsory. such registration enables the partnership firm to file a suit with respect to certain transactions connected with the contract with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2000 (HC)

S. Ashok Kumar Vs. Mrs. Jasoda Bai and Another

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2000(4)CTC24

..... c.p.c. for rejecting the plaint as it was barred by law in view of the provisions of sec.69 of the indian partnership act (herein after referred to as 'the act'). in the affidavit filed in support of this application, the petitioner stated that there is no whisper in the plaint as to whether ..... lease agreement was entered into by the petitioner with thepartnership firm or with the four individuals in their personal capacity. the relevant recital in the partnership agreement clause 13 also states that the tenancy right will belong to all the partners in equal proportion. the amounts have been paid by the ..... be the interference of the petitioner with the respondents' possession. the prayer is for restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondents' possession of the partnership firm otherwise than by due process of law.10. it is not necessary for the defendant to file a written statement or doanything further, because ..... maharajan & co., 1991 t.l.n.j. 107. to decide whether sec.69(2) of the act is attracted the plaint statements must be perused. though the plaint in this case refers to a partnership agreement dated 12.1.1996, the suit is filed in the name of two individuals who do not ..... the partnership had been registered or not and therefore, the suit ought to be dismissed as not maintainable. the respondents in their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1978 (HC)

S. Arunagiri Chettiar Vs. Third Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1979]117ITR308(Mad)

..... sought to be made out by counsel on behalf of therevenue on the basis of the provision in section 25 of the indian partnership act.' 14. it is this passage which is very much relied upon by mr. k. srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, under the general law of ..... even otherwise, we do not understand this decision to be an authority for this extreme proposition that the liability of the petitioner under section 25 of the partnership act also would not arise because the liability to pay arrears is not a contractual obligation. all that was held in ito v. radha krishan : [1967] ..... partnership act cannot be imported into the income-tax act.' 13. in so doing the full bench at page 148, referring to the facts of ito v. radha krishan : [1967]66itr590(sc) , held : 'the firm consisted of four partners a, b, c and d. the firm had been registered under section 26a of the indian income-tax act ..... , 1922. a represented his hindu undivided family in the partnership and his share was 8 annas. in assessing a under section 23(5)(a) for the year the income-of a from ..... partnership. the fallacy in this extreme argument is ito v. radha krishan : [1967]66itr590(sc) , a case which arose under section 26a of the indian income-tax act of 1922. in fact, the full bench itself notes at page 151 and says .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 1973 (HC)

R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Controller of Estate Duty

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1975]99ITR410(Mad)

..... , but by the very intention of the parties to treat such property belonging to one or more of the members of the partnership as that of the firm. the learned judges in that case referred to section 14 of the indian partnership act in support of the said view. section 14 states that ' theproperty of the firm includes all property and rights and interests ..... of this court took the view that no document is necessary when a partner brings into the partnership some of his assets with an intention to treat the same as partnership assets, that by virtue of section 14 of the partnership act, property could be thrown into the partnership stock without any formal document, so as to make it the property of the firm. the ..... contention of the assessee that unless there is a document of transfer, the immovable properties in question cannot be treated as partnership assets, cannot, therefore, be accepted. 6. if the immovable ..... the share of the deceased in the foreign immovable properties. the contention of the assessee was that the share of the deceased in the partnership should have been exempted from duty under section 21(1)(a) of the act and that the rule 7(c) of the estate duty rules, 1953, which has been invoked in this case by the assistant controller .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 2000 (HC)

M/S. Mc. Adams Chemicals Manufacturing Company, 70-b, Viralimalai Road ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2000(4)CTC751

..... was served on the first respondent only on 28.9.1996, that in the mean time, the second defendant issued notice under section 41 of indian partnership act about the dissolution of the firm from 18.9.1996, that as on 23.9.1996 when the cheques were sought to be cleared ..... the facts and circumstances of this case. if the subsequent events are thus considered, the position would be, by virtue of the operation of the provisions of the partnership act, the dissolution of the firm had come into effect as on 18.9.1996. therefore viewed in that respect, the question would be as to whether it ..... respondent was only on 28.9.1996, that by virtue of the notice given by the second 28.9.1996, defendant under section 43(1) of the partnership act for dissolution of the first petitioner firm, the status quo as on that day was non existence of the firm itself, that in any event, the action ..... , partnership firm was not in existence by virtue of the notice issued by the second respondent under section 41 of partnership act, that that was the status prevailing when orders were passed on 19.9.1996 in ..... 1996 in their capacity as partners of the first petitioner firm intimating the bank about the withdrawal of powers conferred on the second petitioner by virtue of the partnership deed dated 1.6.1992 to operate the bank accounts on behalf of the first petitioner firm and therefore, none of the cheques signed by the managing .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!

Mar 03 2003 (HC)

Bhangaru Packaging Co., Rep. by Its Proprietor, M. Madhusudan Rao Vs. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)679; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)497; III(2003)BC352; 2003CriLJ2498

..... the petitioner has no application to the present set of facts, because in that case the complainant-firm was not at all registered under the indian partnership act by the date of issuance of the cheque therein. 8. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the ..... reliance can be placed upon this document at this stage for the simple reason that it was not registered as required under the provisions of the indian partnership act. so, by the date of issuance of the cheque in question, whether marvel organics was registered or not has to be decided at the ..... firm was entered in the registrar of firms on 27.8.1991 and, therefore, there is no bar under the provisions of section 69(2) of the indian partnership act. therefore, he prays, the petition be dismissed. 4. a division bench of this court has held in amit desai v. m/s. shine enterprises, ..... from the cause-title of the complaint, marwel organics-complainant is represented by its managing partner, daggubati srinivas prasad. in the copy of the unregistered partnership deed, dated 2.6.2001, it is stated that daggubati srinivasa prasad and mallela koteswara rao, father of mallela vasu, had been carrying on ..... the 1st respondent-firm was not competent to file the complaint because it was unregistered, and that the person whose name was shown in the partnership deed was not the managing partner of the 1st respondent-firm, and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. learned counsel for the 1st .....

Tag this Judgment!

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