Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: orissa Year: 1957 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.036 seconds)

Oct 14 1957 (HC)

Fatechand and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Oct-14-1957

Reported in : AIR1958Ori22

..... be sent to berhampur by sending a draft or cheque in the name of his sons who were already at berhampur and carrying on business in partnership as alleged by them. but the most curious feature that appeared before the income-tax officer was another memorandum from the magistrate at ramagarh, sri ..... , by any stretch, be attacked as perverse. 8. the case of the assessee that the firm sushil chandra jain and co. was merely a partnership firm in which the assessee owned a share omy was rejected, and it was definitely found that the so-called firm of sushil chandra jain and co ..... only case was that they have only ten annas share in the business of sushil chandra jain & co. and the other six annas of the partnership belonged to one laduram; there was no independent business for the year in question.in the face of this clear case set up by the assessee ..... -48 the income-tax officer held that the business did not belong to a partnership firm but was the business of the hindu undivided family of fatechand & sons; the family had their original residence at ramgarh, an indian state; but for sometime past they are residing in british india and are carrying ..... indian income-tax act at the instance of. messrs. fatechand & sons who have been assessed as a hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1946-47, the accounting year ending on 31st march 1946. a business styled as sushil chandra jain & co., was started at berhampur on 3rd september, 1945. the assessee's case was that this was a partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 1957 (HC)

S.R. Agrawalla and Brothers Vs. Collector of Sales-tax

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Nov-21-1957

Reported in : AIR1958Ori87; [1958]9STC31(Orissa)

..... brocade business was divided among the members of the family in equal shares and that on the next day the members of the family formed two partnership under the names, sohan pathak and giridhari pathak and g. m. pathak and compay, and carried on business in benarasi borcade though the family ..... not before the authorities at the time the assessment was completed.this provision is in pari materia with the provision in section 66 (4) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (act xi of 1922). mr. mohanty in support of this contention, relied upon a decision reported in sohan pathak & sons v. commr. of income ..... resold in orissa and accordingly, both of them were therefore exempt from paying sales-tax under section 5 (2) (a) (ii) of the local act. the petitioner in that case subsequently sold the goods outside orissa. the board of revenue rightly included the sale-price of such goods in the petitioners ..... court, however, granted to the state of madras a certificate under article 134(1)(c) of the constitution. on appeal to the supreme court, das, acting chief justice (as he then was), held that even conceding, without deciding it, that section 16-a did not prevent the respondent from questioning the ..... next contention was that the petitioners are exempt from taxation by the local authorities by virtue of article 286(2) of the constitution.4. the local act, under section 24(2) provides for the restatement of a case by the revenue commissioner on certain specified grounds. sub-section (4) to section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1957 (HC)

A. Suryanarayan Murthy Vs. P. Krishna Murty and anr.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Mar-21-1957

Reported in : AIR1957Ori124; 23(1957)CLT291

..... sacrament and a necessity from spiritual and social points of view.the plaintiff was sui generis. he was to choose his partner in life, the partnership being indissoluble according to the concept preaviling at the time and if pecuniary gain is the sole consideration for entering into such sacred and indissoluble union, ..... of his giving his daughter in marriage to be regarded as immoral or opposed to public policy within the meaning of section 23 of the indian contract act?' the opinion of the full bench expressed in the leading judgment of the chief justice sir arnold white is in the affirmative.but the learned ..... basis of this madras decision. the contract which is -sought to be enforced by the present plaintiffs is, therefore, hit by section 23 of the indian contract act as being immoral and as such it is not enforceable in court.7. in conclusion, the appeal succeeds, the judgments and decrees of the courts ..... of his giving his daughter in marriage to be regarded as immoral or opposed to public policy within the meaning of section 23 of the indian contract act, it is held that such a contract was immoral and opposed to public policy, although a marriage when performed in the asura form is valid ..... if the present case can be brought within the language of any other article. mr. mohapatra has drawn our attention to article 65 of the limitation act running as follows:'65. for compensation for breach , of a promise to do anything at a speci-fied time, or uponthe happening of a specified .....

Tag this Judgment!


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