Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Page 100 of about 36,012 results (0.431 seconds)

Sep 11 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Royal Amber Resorts

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : [1987]164ITR311(Raj)

..... in narayanappa's case : [1966]3scr400 , their lordships of the supreme court after a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the indian partnership act laid down the law as under (paragraph 5 at page 1304):'the whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable property ..... was brought in by a partner of the firm as his contribution towards the assets of the partnership firm, there was no transfer at all within the meaning of the transfer of property act and that there was no provision under the partnership act or under the indian registration act, which requires such bringing in of the property by the partner into the assets of the ..... firm as requiring registration. it was observed that even if a property contributed by one partner be an immovable property, no document, registered or otherwise, is required for transferring the property to the partnership.5. on the ..... , it was held in the earlier amber corporation's case , that when property was brought in by a partner as his contribution towards the capital of the partnership firm, the building was partnership property and the assessee-firm was entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the building. the same view was affirmed in the later amber corporation's case [1984 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1985 (TRI)

V. Madhava Menon Vs. Gift-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Reported in : (1987)23ITD289(Coch.)

..... rajasthan high court in amber corpn.'s case (supra) where it was held in the head-note of the decision as follows : on a reading of section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932, it would be clear that all property and rights and interests which the partners may have brought into the common stock as their contribution to the common business are ..... only to 5 per cent of the profits is under an obligation to manage the day-to-day conduct of the business of the firm. under section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 the property of the firm represents all the property as well as the rights and interests in the property originally brought into the stock of the firm (i) or ..... purposes and in the course of the business of firm and (hi) the goodwill of the business. in the partnership deed, before us there is no clause which runs contrary to the effect of section 14. section 48(b)(iii) of the indian partnership act states in what way the assets of the firm should be distributed after dissolution of the firm and during ..... the firm and stated as follows : ... if the partners agreed to treat the property of any of them as partnership property, such property will become partnership property and section 14 of the partnership act becomes applicable. the said act is not similar to the unilateral act on the part of a coparcener who throws his separate property into the family hotchpot. the legal results which flow .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1985 (HC)

Achalsinhji Keshrisinhji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujar ...

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : [1986]157ITR537(Guj)

..... it would be necessary to see the definition of the term 'partnership' in the partnership act, as in section 2(23) of the income-tax act, 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932. section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, defines 'partnership' as under : '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.' 8. it is ..... clear from the above definition of 'partnership' that what is essential is ..... and as per the definition of 'consideration', even the promise for investing the amount of rs. 5,000 is a consideration for entry into the partnership. 12. in the book on indian contract act by mulla, on the point of executory consideration, it is observed as under (at p. 52) : 'consideration is executory when a promise is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1985 (HC)

Patel and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : [1986]161ITR568(Guj)

..... made the assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 of the act on the permise that the assessee was an unregistered firm. under section 2(23) of the act, the expression 'firm' has the same meaning assigned to it under the indian partnership act, 1932. 'person' under section 2(31) includes a firm. explanation ..... sole ground that a composite appeal is not maintainable can only be described as hyper-technical and in the absence of positive indication in the act or the rules prohibiting a composite appeal, we think the tribunal ought to have corrected the technical approach of the appellate assistant commissioner rather ..... the appeal against the refusal to renew registration could be entertained under clause (j) of sub-section (1) of section 246 of the act, since neither the act nor the rules prohibits a composite appeal to the same authority. in our view, both the appellate assistant commissioner and the tribunal adopted a ..... 100itr660(guj) , and approving the ratio laid down therein, the learned judges proceeded to examine whether the appeal could lie under section 246(1)(c) of the act. after referring to the definition of 'person' contained in section 2(31) and explanation (2) to sub-section (3) of section 143, which defines the ..... a.m. ahmadi, j.1. the assessee is a partnership firm. it was registered under section 185 of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the act'), prior to the assessment year in question. in the assessment year 1971-72, it made a declaration in form no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rao and Company

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Bom)70; [1986]161ITR806(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN452(Bom)

..... m/s. rao family society, which carried on the business of running the said cinema houses on the appointed day, was a body which would have been recognised under the indian partnership act or the law of partnership in india as a partnership, had it been functioning in india, and the second question is whether, even assuming that the said body did constitute a ..... , provided that the joint family will be governed, managed and represented by the seniormost male member who is capable under civil law. the relevant portion of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, runs as follows :'4. ' partnership ' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... observed as follows :'... the rao societies familiar, as stated earlier, was an association of persons and the facts show that it was more or less akin to a partnership known to the indian law.'8. on the basis of this conclusion, the tribunal held that the conditions which the assessee had to fulfil in order to get the benefit of the concession ..... contained in paragraphs 9, 16 and 17 of the dadra and nagar haveli and goa, daman and diu (taxation concessions) order, 1964 ?'2. the assessee is a partnership firm registered under the income-tax act for the assessment year 1965-66 onwards. the assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67,1967-68 and 1968 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 1985 (SC)

Sunil Siddharthbhai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1986SC368; (1985)49CTR(SC)172; [1985]156ITR509(SC); 1985(2)SCALE755; (1985)4SCC519; [1985]Supp3SCR102

..... malabar fisheries co. v. commissioner of income-tax, kerala : [1979]120itr49(sc) , this court observed:.it seems to us clear that a partnership firm under the indian partnership act, 1932, is not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally in law the firm as such has no separate right of ..... of the partnership brings into the firm assets, they become the property of the firm, not by any transfer, ..... court held that when a partner introduces his property into a partnership firm as his contribution to its capital the transaction does not involve a sale of the property. the high court referred to section 14 of the indian partnership act and observed:when a partnership is formed for the first time and one of the members ..... its own in the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's property or firm's assets all that is meant ..... holding that there was a transfer within the meaning of sub-section (47) of section 2 of the income tax act, 1961 of the shares contributed by the assessee as capital to the partnership firm in which he was a partner?4. in civil appeal no. 1777 of 1981, the appellant was a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1985 (SC)

Smt. Saroj Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (1985)4SCC539

..... july 1956 had retired and the parties mentioned in the deed had decided and agreed to carry on business in partnership and the terms were reduced to writing. clause 6 stated, inter alia, that the partnership was a partnership at will and the indian partnership act, 1932 applied to it. clause 7 stated that shares of the parties in the profits (or losses, if any) should ..... ravi agarwal under the guardianship of his father and sudhir kumar agarwal under the guardianship of his adoptive mother, the present assessee, had been admitted to the benefits of partnership with such rights and liabilities as were provided under section 30 of the indian partnership act. the deed further recited that due to the above changes it had become necessary for fresh deed of ..... partnership to be executed and set out the terms. clauses (2) and (7), inter alia, provided:(2) that the profits and losses of the said firm shall be shared by the ..... be as under:first party . . . . -/5/3 in a rupeesecond party . . . . -/5/3 in a rupeethird party . . . . -/5/6 in a rupee4. the other clauses were the usual partnership clauses not very .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1985 (SC)

Saroj Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1986SC376; (1985)49CTR(SC)183; [1985]156ITR497(SC); 1985(2)SCALE803; [1985]Supp3SCR209; 1986(1)LC572(SC)

..... july, 1956 had retired and the parties mentioned in the deed had decided and agreed to carry on business in partnership and the terms were reduced to writing. clause 6 stated, inter alia, that the partnership was a partnership at will and the indian partnership act, 1932 applied to it. clause 7 stated that shares of the parties in the profits (or losses, if any) should ..... ravi agarwal under the guardianship of his father and sudhir kumar agarwal under the guardianship of his adoptive mother, the present assessee, had been admitted to the benefits of partnership with such rights and liabilities as were provided under section 30 of the indian partnership act. the deed further recited that due to the above changes it had become necessary for fresh deed of ..... partnership to be executed and set out the terms. clause (2) and (7), inter alia, provided:(2) that the profits and losses of the said firm shall be shared by the ..... be as under:first party -/5/3 in a rupee second party -/5/3 in a rupee third party -/5/6 in a rupee 4. the other clauses were the usual partnership clauses not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhaichand Textile Mills

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1986)51CTR(Bom)38; [1986]161ITR129(Bom); [1986]25TAXMAN15(Bom)

..... , in that an application for registration can be made on behalf of any firm constituted under a deed of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners.) on behalf of the assessee, the provision of section 13(b) of the indian partnership act, 1932, were brought to the notice of the supreme court. section 13(b) provides that subject to contract between the ..... 136itr288(bom) . this court noted that though the provisions of section 184 of the income-tax act, 1961, had made certain changes as compared to the provisions of section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, the substantial requirement that there must be a deed of partnership and the individual shares of the partners must be specified therein remained the same. it was ..... for their maintenance, education and advancement of the said minors.'3. the assessee applied for registration under the provisions of the income-tax act, 1961. the income-tax officer rejected the application on the ground that the partnership deed did not provide for the division of losses among the partners. the appellate assistant commissioner, on the assessee's appeal, upheld the ..... contended on behalf of the assessee that it was not a requirement of section 184 that the partnership deed should specify the shares of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mittal Engineering Co.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : [1987]163ITR415(P& H)

..... d. kamath and co. v. cit : [1971]82itr680(sc) , wherein it was held that the legal requirement under section 4 of the partnership act to constitute a partnership in law is that there must be an agreement to share the profits, or losses of the business; and the business must be carried on ..... consisted of seven members two of whom were minors and two were ladies. the minors were stated to have been admitted to the benefits of the partnership and the ladies were described as sleeping partners. both these sets of partners neither contributed any personal skill nor capital. on these facts, the ..... of skill or labour, there was a valid partnership dated september 24, 1972 ? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that explanation to section 185(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, is not attracted to this case ? ..... by all the partners or any of them acting for all.3. so far as question no. 2 is concerned, the tribunal held that explanation to section 185(1) of the act ..... act for a mandamus requiring the tribunal to refer the following three questions to this court:' 1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal has misdirected itself in law in holding that though admittedly the lady partners and the minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!


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