Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat nagpur Year: 1953 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.101 seconds)

Dec 10 1953 (TRI)

Jabalpur Ice Manufacturing Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax,

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur

Decided on : Dec-10-1953

Reported in : 195527ITR88(Nag.)

..... person" : "person shall include any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not." this term has not been defined either in the indian contract act, 1872, or in the indian partnership act, 1932. in the indian income-tax act, 1922, it is defined in section 2 (9) as below : "person includes a hindu undivided family and a local authority." kanga and palkhivala ..... the question was mooted before their lordships of the privy council in bhagwanji v. alembic chemical works in which they observed : "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 ..... however, urged by the learned counsel for the assessee firm that whatever view might be held on the basis of section 239 of the indian contract act, 1872, it cannot hold good since the passing of the indian partnership act, 1932, which recognises a distinct entity for a firm apart from the members composing it. it was also urged that keeping in view ..... has a distinct legal entity and is entitled to enter into partnership with another firm or individuals.9. partnership as defined in section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, does not differ materially from either the definition in section 239 of the indian contract act, 1872, or section i of the english partnership act, 1890. there is no doubt that it would appear from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1953 (TRI)

Shri Inderjit Singh Sial Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur

Decided on : Jan-30-1953

Reported in : 195528ITR121(Nag.)

..... order passed on 3rd may, 1949, is as follows :- "we would, therefore, direct that only the assessees share from this partnership be included in his assessment. the sons share should be assessed in the hands of the son." 3. on receipt of the order, the income-tax officer ..... p. s. sial appealed to the appellate assistant commissioner, but he was unsuccessful. the appellate tribunal, however, accepted his contention and held that there was a partnership between the father and the son and that p. s.sial was liable to pay tax only on his share of profits. the material part of the ..... the taxable limit. the reason for excluding the amount of rs. 21,100 was that he had in the previous assessment year held that there was no partnership between the father and the son and that the business belonged to p. s. sial alone. the entire profits were included in the income of p. ..... his income to be rs. 22,185-8-0. according to him, the amount of rs. 21,100 represented his share of profits made by the partnership entitled the chhindwara military hutting contract of which he and his father were partners. the details of the income were shown as follows :- the income-tax officer ..... assessment made on any partner of the firm or any member of the association." this sub-section which was inserted by section 11 of the indian income-tax (amendment) act, 1944, has not been the subject of any reported or unreported decision and the question is of first impression. the assessee did not appeal. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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