Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: guwahati Page 1 of about 132 results (0.029 seconds)

May 28 1952 (HC)

Saligram Rai Chunilal Bahadur and Co. Vs. Abdul Gani and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... concerned in suits for eviction based on tenancy, are the lessor and the lessee. a firm is an entity recognised by the indian partnership act. in section 4 of the act, 'partnership' is defined as 'the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or ..... plaintiff firm was the lessor. the defendants further contended that the suit was barred by reason of the provisions of section 59, indian partnership act read with section 58 of the same act. they also denied that they received any notice of eviction.4. on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: ..... any of them acting for all'. 'persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually 'partners' and collectively 'a firm', and the name under which their business is carried ..... debarred from entering into a contract of lease. if they do, then they are the landlords and the firm is the lessor,--each partner acting as the agent of the other in law. it is not necessary that the identity of the partners should be disclosed either in the notice ..... disputed is that the defendants did not receive the letter but this is belied by the acknowledgment filed. moreover, in virtue of section 27, general clauses act, the presumption is that, when a letter is properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post, and it contains the document, namely, the notice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1958 (HC)

Sethi Brothers Vs. Asst. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs ...

Court : Guwahati

..... question of law and fact, they can be disposed of by one common judgment. the petitioner in rule no. 36 is a partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act and carries on business amongst other places at biswanathghat in the district of darrang. the general guarantee bond was executed in the name of ..... m/s. bhuramal dhalulal through sri manmall sethi in favour of the assistant collector of central excise and land customs, gauhati for transporting goods from assam to other parts of indian ..... the duty. the second line of argument is that even assuming that the source of the levy is the statutory provisions of the indian tarrif act and the land customs act, in the present case no duty was leviable as the goods cannot be said to have been exported. the goods were despatched ..... of the general guarantee bond executed by the petitioners. the source of the levy therefore, according to the petitioner, was not the provisions of indian tarrif act; but the terms of the bond and if the terms of the contract do not give any right to pay the customs duty in ..... the shipment and landing of goods. 7. it is urged by the advocate general that reading section 5 along with section 2 of the indian tarrif act, the goods despatched by the petitioner were liable to pay the customs duty. the source of the levy of the customs duty is to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1964 (HC)

Jwala Prasad Agarwala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam.

Court : Guwahati

..... aspect of the matter which may be examined. under section 2(6b) of the income-tax act, a "partner" has been defined as follow :"2. (6b) firm, partner and partnership have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act, 1932 (ix of 1932 : provided that the expression partner includes any person who being a ..... minor has been admitted to the benefits of partnership."section 3 of the income-tax act says that where any central act enacts that income-tax shall be ..... of the firm and then as his individual income. a minor, who has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership, is a partner for the purposes of the income-tax act and thus his share of profit will be included in his separate income and the income of the firm will ..... derived from the above three firms were included in the income of the father, jwalaprasad agarwala, under section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the indian income-tax act, 1922.the contention raised by the assessee before the tribunal was that the shares of profits which the minor derived from the three firms ..... mehrotra c.j. - the following questions of law have been referred to this court for opinion under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, by the income-tax appellate tribunal, calcutta bench "a :"(i) whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1965 (HC)

Chandypore Tea Estate Vs. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam.

Court : Guwahati

..... the agricultural income-tax for the assessment year 1956-57 and 1957-58. the petitioner-firm is a firm registered under the indian partnership act, 1932, hereinafter called the "income-tax act." the income derived by the petitioner-firm having been regarded as agricultural income, forty per cent. thereof had been assessed to income ..... share and the income-tax assessment was made.it is contended that as the petitioner-firm is registered both under the income-tax act as well as under the partnership act, the same principle of apportionment must be followed and the firm should not be assessed as an individuals but the income of ..... made.in the result, we answer the question referred to us as follows :1. for the purpose of the assam agricultural income-tax act, 1939, the partnership firm of chandypore tea estate must be regarded as a separate assessable entity and the income derived by it assessed as such and not on ..... each partner according to his share should be assessed under act in the same way as it was done under the income-tax act. this argument was ..... decision of this court on the following questions of law :"(1) whether, for the purpose of the assam agricultural income-tax act, 1939, the partnership firm of chandypore tea estate is a separate assessable entity apart from the individual partners who constitution the firm ?(2) whether, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1968 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kedarmall Keshardeo

Court : Guwahati

..... fourth partner and she may be accountable to the minor for the profits she has earned out of the partnership. this automatically does not make the minor, gobindram bajaj, as a fifth partner in the partnership.8. section 4 of the indian partnership act defines ' partnership ' as a relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by ..... all or any of them acting for all. persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually ' partners ' and collectively 'a firm ..... '. under section 5 of the same act, the relation of partnership arises from contract and ..... , there is no basis for holding on the recitals of the document that the minor was also admitted into the partnership, and hence cannot be deemed to be a partner under section 2(6b) of the indian income-tax act.12. the learned counsel next draws our attention to the following observations of their lordships of the supreme court in .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1972 (HC)

Tolaram Bijoy Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

..... will pass by survivorship, but the male issue of the acquirers do not take interest in it by birth. 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 by ..... concerned showing the business to be a joint family business. even without taking note of the above conduct, the tribunal took note of the deed of partnership as well as the deed of partition, mentioned above, wherein ' there is an open solemn admission that the members have been treating the business as ..... previous year, rejected the assessee's claim. that is how the matter has now come to us on a reference under section 66(1} of the indian income-tax act, 1922. 6. the question of law referred by the tribunal on the application of the assessee is as follows: ' whether, on the facts ..... vested in equal proportion in all the parties.' on september 19, 1950, an application was made for passing an order under section 25a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, to record the partition. the income-tax officer allowed the partition by his order dated august 17, 1954, with effect from the last ..... as members of a joint family, but as members of an ordinary trade partnership resting on contract, in which case the property will be deemed to be partnership property.' the supreme court had to consider a similar question under the wealth-tax act in n.v. narendranath v. commissioner of wealth-tax, [1969] 74 i .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 1972 (HC)

Sikaria Sons and Company and anr. Vs. Superintendent of Taxes and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... . the facts of c.r. no. 214 alone may be noted.2. the petitioner no. 1 (briefly petitioner) is a registered firm under the indian partnership act and runs a roller flour mill at gauhati and the petitioner no. 2, one of the partners, manages the affairs of the firm. the government supplies ..... by the superintendent. the learned advocate-general submits that, as a matter of practice, the commissioner after delegating powers under various sections of the act does not exercise the same powers. we are not required to consider this aspect of the matter in that light. it is sufficient to point ..... not required to do assessments at the base. although the power resides in the commissioner, in order to carry on the tax administration smoothly, the act provides for delegation of his powers. no objection has been made with regard to the power of delegation conferred on the commissioner. although at one ..... superintendent. by rule 71, the officer to whom powers may be delegated under section 50 shall exercise the powers subject to the provisions of the act and the rules thereunder and to such restrictions as may be imposed by the commissioner in delegating the powers. it is, therefore, clear that ..... the superintendent of taxes on 11th november, 1967, issued a notice to the petitioner under section 19-a of the assam sales tax act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the act'), stating that from the information in his possession he had reasons to believe that during the return period ending on 30th september, 1965, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 1975 (HC)

Phulchand Ratanlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

..... a partnership were not considered as discussed hereinabove. but some materials were considered which are not very relevant for the purpose. some circumstances were considered which may at best ..... the returns of income submitted for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63.6. it is common case that a partnership firm may be formed even without a written document. section 4 of the indian partnership act defines 'partnership' as follows: 'partnership' 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.'7. thus, to form a partnership there must be an agreement between the partners to share the profits of ..... constitute a partnership-firm it is not necessary that there must always be a written document putting therein the terms of the partnership. on a consideration of the materials on record we find that, in arriving at the conclusion that the assessee could not establish its status as a firm, the legal requirements under section 4 of the indian partnership act to constitute .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1975 (HC)

Mahabir Prasad Kishanlal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

..... is not a genuine firm in existence the income-tax officer is required to consider the validity of the deed of partnership. if such a deed of partnership is invalid in law offending any of the provisions of the indian contract act or the indian partnership act, 1932, the income-tax officer may legally hold that the registration was obtained without there being a firm in existence ..... partnership. it is thus found that the agreement of partnership in question is contrary to the relevant provisions of the indian contract act and the indian partnership act itself. that being so, the partnership deed is invalid, and, therefore, the income-tax officer in exercising his power for cancellation is justified ..... behalf of the minors. it is not a caseof the partners agreeing to admit some minors to the benefits of the partnership as provided under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the indian partnership act. the partnership in terms has sought to make the minors also full fledged partners and it has been stated that their respective fathers have agreed to enter into the ..... and such registration is liable to be cancelled in exercise of powers under rule 6b.12. section 4 of the indian partnership act 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1975 (HC)

Ladhuram Laxmi Narayan Vs. Income-tax Officer, Additional a Ward and o ...

Court : Guwahati

..... 10, 1971, issued to him under section 148 of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), by the income-tax officer, respondent no. 1. 2. the petitioner is a partnership-firm registered under the indian partnership act having its head office at gauhati. for the assessment year 1962-63, ..... the petitioner filed a return showing its total income during the accounting year 1961-62, ram navami year 2018. notice under section 143(2) of the act was issued to the ..... been assessed at too low a rate ; or (c) where such income has been made the subject of excessive relief trader this act or under the indian income-tax act, 1922 ; or (d) where excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed. explanation 2.--production before the income-tax officer of ..... 63.' 14. in calcutta discount co. ltd. v. income-tax officer : [1961]41itr191(sc) while considering section 34(1 )(a) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, the supreme court has observed at page 377 as follows : 'we have, therefore, come to the conclusion that while the duty of ..... said ' yes '.23. we have already found that the first ground given by the income-tax officer in his report praying for sanction for acting under section 148 is admittedly a mistaken ground and, therefore, non-existent. that being so, the satisfaction of the additional commissioner in the instant .....

Tag this Judgment!


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