Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Year: 1973 Page 6 of about 140 results (0.085 seconds)

Dec 18 1973 (HC)

Chhotalal and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Morvi and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-18-1973

Reported in : [1976]105ITR230(Guj)

..... short facts giving rise to these three petitions are as follows. the partnership firm is carrying on its business at morvi in rajkot district. all the partners of the partnership firm are indian citizens. the firm is registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act. the firm maintains its books of account on mercantile basis and ..... has adopted samvat year as its accounting year. the relavent assessment year was 1967-68, the accoounting year being samvat year 2022. the registered firm is an assessee under the income-tax act and it being ..... 1967-68. for the relevant assessment year 1967-68 the return of income under section 139(1) of the income-tax act had to be furnished before june 30, 1967. the partnership firm did not make any application to the first respondent for extension of time but under section 139(4) of the ..... applications by this common judgment. the petitioner is special civil application no. 294 of 1972 is a partnership firm which has been registered with the income-tax authorities in accordances with the provision of the act. the petitioners in special civil applications no. 655 of 1972 and 1112 of 1972 are partners ..... act, the partnership firm filed the return and applied for extension of time before the assessment was made and it was done within .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 1973 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-27-1973

Reported in : [1976]104ITR337(Mad)

..... was entitled to have the losses for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1954-55 quantified and set-off against its share income from the partnership firm of dalmia magnesite corporation for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62? 3. whether the appellate tribunal has jurisdiction to direct the income ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of interest and other expenses from its share income from the partnership firm of dalmia magnesite corporation for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 ? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ..... losses have been incurred in the same business which was originally run by the assessee-company as a proprietary concern but, later, run by the partnership of which the assessee is a partner. in this connection, the tribunal rejected the contention put forward on behalf of the department that since the ..... income and that it could not be said that the interest paid was the money borrowed for the purposes of investment as capital in the partnership firm 6. in relation to the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee-company again claimed deduction in respect of the establishment and interest charges ..... its share income from dalmia magnesite corporation for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 under the provisions of section 24(2)(iii) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 ? 5. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee, as a partner in the firm of dalmia .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 1973 (HC)

Smt. Nripendrakumari Bhandari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-16-1973

Reported in : [1976]105ITR158(Mad)

..... from outsiders at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent. interest which is the rate of interest that was paid to the minors. under section 13(d) of the partnership act a partner making for the purpose of the business any payment or advance beyond the amount of capital he has agreed to subscribe is entitled to interest thereon at the ..... ) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. considering the matter from the first principles and without reference to any authority, the learned judges felt that the right to receive the interest was the consequence of the membership of the wife in the firm or the admission of the minors to the benefits of the partnership, that section 13(d) of the partnership act having provided ..... the benefits of the partnership even when the firm was constituted, section 64(ii) of the act of 1961 had no application in her case and that the interpretation placed by the supreme court in commissioner of income-tax v. sodra devi : [1957]32itr615(sc) on the corresponding provision in section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, to the ..... effect that the expression 'individual' does not include the female of the species should continue to apply to a firm which had come into existence prior to the commencement of the act of 1961. alternatively, it was contended by the assessee that the interest portion of the income of the two minors received from the partnership .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 1973 (HC)

S. Srinivasan by L. Rs. Shanbagammal and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-16-1973

Reported in : [1976]105ITR315(Mad)

..... balances has to be decided by the firm from time to time and not at the rate referred to in section 13(d) of the partnership act, nor is there any indication in the partnership deed that the rate of interest paid to the wife and the minors is the same as that paid to third parties. therefore, it ..... to the extent of rs. 5,269, rs. 5,750 and rs. 5,737 in the assessment of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 ?' 9. in the judgment just now rendered by us in t.c. no. 95 of ..... rs. 8,608, rs. 10,071, rs. 11,023 and rs. 1,261 in the assessment of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1961-62 ? 3. whether the interest credited by the firm of anjaneya motor transport to the current account of ..... anjaneya motor transport to the current account of the assessec's wife is includible in the assessment of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(i) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1961-62 ? 2. whether the interest credited by the firm of anjaneya motor transport to the currant account ..... firm and these interest amounts were included in the assessee's total income by the income-tax officer under section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the indian income-tax act of 1922. the said inclusion was challenged by the assessee. this court in s. srinivasan v. commissioner of income-tax : [1963]50itr160(mad) held that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1973 (HC)

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur Vs. Uttam Kumar Promod K ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-20-1973

Reported in : [1974]97ITR730(All)

..... thus not parties to this document. in our opinion, the minors cannot be admitted to the benefits of partnership unless they are parties to the agreement through their guardians. section 30(1) of the indian partnership act says that a minor may not be a partner in a firm, but, with the consent of all the ..... partners for the time being, he may be admitted to the benefits of partnership. sub-section (5) of the section provides that a minor ..... losses.'the supreme court further observed :'it follows from the above discussion that as long as a partnership deed does not make a minor full partner, a partnership deed cannot be regarded as invalid on the ground that ..... full partners or does it only confer benefits of partnership on them ?(2) is any clause of the deed void ?'the observation of the supreme court is in the following terms :'first it is clear from sub-section (2) of section 30 of the partnership act that a minor cannot be made liable for ..... partners. in our opinion, any agreement in which the minors are not parties cannot be validly made to admit the minors to the benefits of partnership under section 30 of the act. the same view was taken by this court in hardutt ray gajadhar ram v. commissioner of income-tax [[1950] 18 i.t.r. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1973 (HC)

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Shanta Ben Mani Lal Patel

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-31-1973

Reported in : [1975]100ITR229(Raj); 1973()WLN722

..... was not correct, the tribunal might have indicated as to on what basis, it concluded, that the entire assets and liabilities were taken over by the partnership firm. in our opinion, the present case is governed by the fourth proposition of law laid down in scindia steam navigation company ltd.. the learned ..... conclusion reached by the tribunal on the first part of the second question, namely, on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the partnership firm inherited all the assets and liabilities of the sole proprietary concern of the deceased, manilal. in commissioner of income-tax v. sri meenakshi mills ..... on the legality of the conclusion reached by the tribunal. in particular, the learned counsel urged that there was no evidence to show that the partnership firm which came into being in 1953 had inherited all the assets and liabilities of the sole proprietary concern of the deceased and, therefore, in ..... as fair and reasonable. on the point of rs. 29,322 the tribunal held that since the whole of the refund amount was kept in the partnership business one-fourth share of this amount fell to the share of the other partner, namely, purshottamdas patel, and, therefore, the whole amount could not ..... it is for the person who has applied for a reference to challenge these findings first by an application under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. if he has failed to file an application under section 66(1) expressly raising a question about the validity of the findings of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 02 1973 (HC)

Bhagwanji Devraj Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-02-1973

Reported in : (1975)16GLR357

..... or more partners is joint or several liability of each all of the partners. the analogy advanced by mr. shah clearly militates against the provisions of section 25 of the indian partnership act and cannot, therefore, be accepted.14. the next argument which mr. shah has raised before me is that rule 443 is penal in character and that, therefore, it should be ..... oil mills. that proposition submitted by mr. shah is quite correct. however, the liability of a partner must be determined in light of the provisions of section 25 of the indian partnership act to which i have referred earlier. it may be noted at this stage that the petitioner has not ceased to be a partner of shakti oil mills.13. the next ..... of the telephone installed in the name of the firm. the analogy which mr. shah has given does not hold good on account of provisions of section 25 of the indian partnership act. personal liability of a partner is not the liability of all the partners constituting the firm. what section 25 provides is that the liability of a ..... the privy council in bhagwanji a for goculdas v. alembic chemical works co. ltd. and ors. . it has been laid down by the privy council in that decision that a partnership firm, under the indian partnership act, possesses a distinct personality. that observation has been made by the privy council in the context of change in the constitution of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 1973 (HC)

Ramdas Khimji Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-17-1973

Reported in : [1974]97ITR361(Bom)

..... on which tax was at any time charged under the provisions of the indian income-tax act, 1918 (7 of 1918), is succeeded in such capacity by another person, the change not being merely a change in the constitution of a partnership, no tax shall be payable by the first mentioned person in respect of ..... the son transferred the business to a limited company, and for the assessment year 1948-49, he claimed relief under section 25 (4) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 and the question which arose was, whether on the facts stated above, there was a succession to the business within the terms of the said ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the firm of m/s. ramdas khimji bros. was entitled to relief under section 25 (4) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, in respect of the profits from its business for the period from october 1, 1951, to december 28, 1951, relevant to the assessment year 1953 ..... partners as a proprietary concern. 2. the said firm of ramdas khimji bros. claimed to be entitled to relief under section 25 (4) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, in respect of the profits from its business for the period from october 1, 1951, to december 28, 1951, the relevant assessment year being ..... the income from which had been charged to income-tax under the indian income-tax act of 1918. it was first charged to super-tax in 1920-21. the constitution of that firm was changed from time to time and some of the partnership deeds relating to the name are on record. on 11th december, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1973 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Raghavji Anandji and Co ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-22-1973

Reported in : [1975]100ITR246(Bom)

..... state that all contracts between a person a, and a and others would be invalid. reference may be made in this connection to the provisions of section 46 of the indian partnership act, 1932, where a partner may enforce as against the firm of which he is a partner certain contractual rights by means of a suit (without dissolution), whereas other can only ..... accordingly it was invalid. in my view, it would be clearly invalid inasmuch as the plurality of persons necessary to constitute the relationship of partners under section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, did not exist in that case.11. very strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on the decision of the privy council in lachhman das ..... authorities, or, if erroneously registered, the registration may be subsequently cancelled by the commissioner under his powers under section 33b of the act. the validity of a partnership would have to be decided with reference to the express provisions of the indian partnership act, and, in a case such as the one before us, with further reference to the principles of hindu law. if it ..... the registration. we have to consider whether that is the correct position in law.10. according to mr. hajarnavis, a partnership is a contractual relationship between persons who have agreed to do certain things as provided for under section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932. according to him, therefore, if there was such an agreement entered into by vandravan purshottam in his one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 1973 (HC)

Juggilal Kamlapat, Bankers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-28-1973

Reported in : [1975]101ITR40(All)

..... of rs. 8,000 was liable to be added to its income as accrued rent or under section 10(2a) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 ?'2. the assessee is a partnership firm and at the material time carried on the business of banking and derived income from interest on securities and property, etc. it ..... had been showing its income from lease rent on accrual basis and had been assessed as such'. later, the assessee applied under section 35 of the act for rectification of the tribunal's order on the ground that the above-quoted observation of the tribunal was factually incorrect inasmuch as the assessee had never ..... by it. if an assessee chooses to adopt the cash system of accounting in respect of the income assessable under section 10 or section 12 of the act, he cannot be assessed on accrual basis. the option is with the assessee and not with the department so that the department cannot compel an assessee ..... assessment year in question.5. as regards the second limb of the question as to whether this amount can be assessed under section 10(2a) of the act, it is difficult to understand as to how that provision applies. section 10(2a) makes a provision for assessment of any loss, expenditure or deductions allowed ..... there is no question of the sum of rs. 8,000 which is the subject-matter of this reference being taxed under section 10(2a) of the act.6. we, accordingly, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. the assessee is entitled to the costs which .....

Tag this Judgment!


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