Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1942 Page 2 of about 17 results (0.070 seconds)

Feb 27 1942 (PC)

Satish Chandra Hui and ors. Vs. Sudhir Krishna Ghosh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-27-1942

Reported in : AIR1942Cal429

..... and powers of all courts except the federal court, with respect to any of the matters in this list.13. item 10 of that list is given thug:contracts, including partnership, agency, contracts of carriage, and other special forms of contract, but not including contracts relating to agricultural land.14. the relevant portion of item 21 of the matters enumerated in ..... the above conclusion we have taken the words 'with respect to one-of the matters enumerated in the concurrent legislative list' in section 107(1), government of india act, 1935, as qualifying 'existing indian law.' the position will not, in the least, be different in the present case whether we take these words as qualifying (1) 'any provision' in 'any provision of ..... putni regulation; (2) that the provisions contained in section 51, civil p.c., as also those contained in sections 2 and 3 of the putni regulations are provisions of existing indian laws: (3)(a) that the provision in section 51, civil p.c., is with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent legislative list, namely its items 4 ..... an existing indian law' or (2) 'an existing indian aw.' it cannot be disputed that the provisions in sections 51 and 60, civil p.c. are also with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1942 (PC)

Gordhandas T. Mangaldas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-25-1942

Reported in : [1943]11ITR183(Bom)

..... in respect of a business which was contended to have been separately carried on after a particular date by members under an alleged agreement of partnership. in my opinion those cases do not directly bear on the point. as has been pointed out saligram ramlal v. commissioner of income-tax ..... not possible to have a division by metes and bounds of a business, except by winding it up and re bringing the assets under a new partnership agreement. the view of mr. justice dalip singh in sher singh nathu ram v. commissioner of income-tax , appears to be somewhat widely expressed, ..... . we therefore confirm the appellate assistant commissioners order and dismiss this appeal." on the application of the assessee under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act (xi of 1922) the appellate tribunal referred the case to the bombay high court. judgment beaumont, c.j. this is a reference made ..... are therefore left to give our own answer on a careful consideration of the several judgments read with the provisions of section 25a of the indian income-tax act. we have stated before that the question raised in biradhmal lodhas case was materially different, being one of a partial partition. in the ..... question was whether, after the members severed one portion of the joint family asset and entered into a partnership agreement in respect thereof, the income-tax officer should have recorded the partnership agreement under section 26a, or whether such an agreement amounted to a severance of that asset from the rest .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 1942 (PC)

Pr. Al. M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-19-1942

Reported in : (1943)1MLJ171

..... commissioner of income-tax to state a case. he refused to do so, but was directed by this court to make this reference under section 66 (3) of the indian income-tax act. the question referred reads as follows:whether the petitioner was not entitled on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to claim a deduction of rs. 22 ..... alfred henry lionel leach, c.j.1. the assessee carried on a money-lending business in rangoon in partnership with the s. p. k. a. firm. the firm composed of the assessee and the s. p. k. a. firm was known as the s. p. k. a. a. m. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 19 1942 (PC)

Pr. Al. M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-19-1942

Reported in : AIR1943Mad389; [1943]11ITR38(Mad)

..... commissioner of income-tax to state a case. he refused to do so, but was directed by this court to make this reference under section 66(3) of the indian income-tax act. the question referred reads as follows :-'whether the petitioner was not entitled on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to claim a deduction of rs. 22 ..... (judgment of the court was delivered by the honourable the chief justice).the assessee carried on a money-lending business in rangoon in partnership with the s.p.k.a. firm. the firm composed of the assessee and the s.p.k.a. firm was known as the s.p.k.a.a.m. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 1942 (PC)

S.V.M. Mahomed Jamaluddeen and Brothers Vs. the Commissioner of Income ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-28-1942

Reported in : AIR1942Mad736; (1942)2MLJ620

..... partner there. therefore the control and management of the firm was not wholly without british india. that being the case the firm is liable to be taxed under the indian income-tax act. section 4-a is a new section and the question here is governed by its terms. before the tribunal there was apparently much discussion of clause (7) of the ..... this court:whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the applicant firm was 'resident' in british india under section 4-a (6) of the income-tax act.2. the tribunal has expressed the opinion that the applicant firm was resident in british india and we have no hesitation in concurring in that opinion.3. the firm commenced ..... partnership deed which provides for the management of the firm in colombo. we do not consider that this clause has any bearing on the question. what the court has to consider .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 1942 (PC)

V. Ramasami Aiyangar and ors. Vs. S.M.A.M. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar an ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-15-1942

Reported in : AIR1942Mad478; (1942)1MLJ430

..... firm name of n. m. s. rm. did not belong to the third defendant alone, but was carried on by the first, second, third and fourth defendants and alagappa in partnership until alagappa's death; (if) that after alagappa's death, the business was certainly continued, but he left undecided the question whether the second defendant could be regarded as one ..... they are entitled to maintain the suit against the other partners of the firm as the first defendant did not pay, the $1,10,525 to a person who under indian law could be regarded as the authorised agent of the depositor and therefore there had in law been no repayment of the deposit. in these circumstances they contend that they .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 1942 (PC)

Messre S V M Mohamed Jamaluddeen and Bros Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-28-1942

Reported in : [1942]10ITR484(Mad)

..... without british india. that being the case the firm is liable to be taxed under the indian income-tax act. section 4-a is a new section and is governed here by its terms. before the tribunal there was apparently much discussion of clause 7 of the partnership deed which provides for the management of the firm in colombo. we do not considered ..... this court :-'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the applicant firm was resident in british india under section 4-a (b) of the income-tax act.'the tribunal has expressed the opinion that the applicant firm was resident in british india and we have no hesitation in concurring in that opinion. the firm commenced carrying on .....

Tag this Judgment!


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