Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1966 Page 1 of about 119 results (0.065 seconds)

Jan 21 1966 (SC)

Addanki Narayanappa and anr. Vs. Bhaskara Krishtappa and 13 ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-21-1966

Reported in : AIR1966SC1300; [1966]3SCR400

..... divided ratably among all thepartners. it is obvious that the act contemplates complete liquidation of theassets of the partnership as a preliminary to the settlement of accounts betweenpartners upon dissolution of the firm and it will, therefore, be correct to saythat, for the purposes of the indian partnership act, and irrespective of anymutual agreement between the partners, the share ..... of each partner is, in thewords of lindley : 'his proportion of the partnership assets after theyhave been all realised and converted into money, and all the partnership debtsand liabilities have been paid and discharged.' this indeed is ..... in favour of the foregoingconclusion certainty preponderated over the others, and all doubt upon thepoint has been removed by the partnership act, 1890, which contains the followingsection : 22. where land or any heritableinterest therein has become partnership, property it shall, unless the contraryintention appears, be treated as between the partners (including therepresentative of a deceased partner ..... any decision of the court of appeal to thecontrary. 12. it seems to us that looking to the scheme of the indian act no other viewcan reasonably be taken. the whole concept of partnership is to embark upon ajoint venture and for that purpose to bring in as capital money or evenproperty including immovable property. once .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1966 (HC)

Jayalakshmi Rice and Oil Mill Contractors Co., Angalur Vs. Commissione ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-15-1966

Reported in : AIR1967AP99; [1967]64ITR125(AP)

..... rule 2 (b), as distinct from rule 2(a), following from the assessee exercising a statutory right given to him under s. 58 of the indian partnership act to convert an unregistered partnership into a registered partnership by an act of his volition.(27) the question is whether the period of limitation for this application automatically became extended when it was pending before the income-tax ..... on the ground that the first defendant had counter-manded payment. the managing proprietor of the plaintiff-firm sent a statement prescribed under section 57(1), travancore partnership act, which corresponded to section 58 of the indian partnership act, with the prescribed fee on 8-11-1947 and they were received by the registrar of joint stock companies on 12-11-1947. the plaintiff filed ..... not refer to the corresponding english law or the commentary of lindley which we have extracted earlier in this judgment. the question of the requirement of section 69 of the indian partnership act that the person suing should be shown in the register of firms as a partner in the firm does not arise in the present case. here, we are concerned with ..... the view which it took regarding that contention as follows:-'the contention on behalf of the assesse firm was that since it had made its application for registration under the indian partnership act on 20-10-1955, which was before the end of the 'previous year' the time limit (b) that is, 'before the end of previous year' and accordingly the application was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1966 (HC)

Ganga Metal Refining Co. Pte. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-05-1966

Reported in : [1968]38CompCas117(Cal),[1968]67ITR771(Cal)

..... not entitled to registration under that section. that decision has to be understood in relation to partnership of firms or registration of firms under the income-tax act and not under the formal concepts of the indian partnership act or under the indian companies act.21. it will be convenient here at this stage to refer to some of the cases cited at the bar. in ravula ..... entities for the purpose of those statutes. one of those statutes is the indian income-tax act, which treats the firm as unit for purposes of taxation.'22. the entity known as a partnership under the income-tax act is not the same entity of partnership strictly within the limits of the indian partnership act.23. we may notice here a few more of the authorities cited at ..... subba rao v. commissioner of income-tax, : [1956]30itr163(sc) ,, it is laid down that it is the intention of the income-tax act that a firm should be ..... the bar. in the case of arunachalam chettiar v. commissioner of income-tax [1936] 4 i.t.r. 173 ; a.i.r. 1936 p.c. 133., the privy council had occasion to discuss this very point of the income-tax entity of a partnership under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1966 (HC)

Ganga Metal Refining Co. Pr. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-05-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Cal429

..... not entitled to registration under that section. that decision has to be understood in relation to partnership of firms or registration of firms under the income-tax act and not under the formal concepts of the indian partnership act or under the indian companies act.23. it will be convenient here at this stage to refer to some of the cases cited at the bar. in subba ..... distinct entities for the purpose of those statutes. one of those statutes is the indian income-tax act, which treats the firm as a unit for purposes of taxation.'the entity known as partnership under the income-tax act is not the same entity of partnership strictly within the limits of the indian partnership act.24. we may notice here a few more of the authorities cited at ..... rao v. commissioner of income-tax, madras, reported in : [1956]30itr163(sc) it is laid down that it is the intention of the income-tax act that a firm should ..... the bar. in the case of arunachalam chettiar v. commissioner of income-tax madras, reported in , the privy council had occasion to discuss this very point of the income-tax 'entity' of a partnership under the income-tax act as will be clear from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1966 (HC)

C. Srinivasa Rao and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-12-1966

Reported in : [1967]63ITR102(KAR); [1967]63ITR102(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ218

..... of a provision authorising such payment, produces a change in the proportion in which the profits or the lose have to be shared. the provision of section 13 of the indian partnership act make it clear that, whatever may be the position in england, a partner would, under contract, be entitled to receive remuneration for participation in the conduct of the business ..... proportion in which profits had to be shared between the partners. whatever may be the consequences emanating from an impermissible payment of remuneration in transgression of section 13 of the partnership act, such payment does not necessarily involve, unless the facts justify such inference, an alteration or change in the proportion in which the profits have to be shared. the tribunal ..... open to discussion in this reference, is that the payment of remuneration to the two partners, to whom we have referred, was prohibited by the section 13 of the partnership act and was impermissible. but it does not follow that a payment of remuneration in disobedience to section 13 is the payment of an addition share of profits. the appellate tribunal ..... the income-tax appellate tribunal, madras, under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, arises out of two applications presented under section 26a of the act for renewal of registration of the assesses firm. the firm consisted of four partners and was constituted under an instrument of partnership executed on december 10, 1957. there was a registration of there firm under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 1966 (HC)

Hiralal Jagannath Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., Lucknow

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-01-1966

Reported in : AIR1968All242; [1967]66ITR293(All)

..... . he also will get 1/7th share in the profits of the firm.' before these words appeal there is a specific reference to the provisions of section 30 of the indian partnership act. in these circumstances there can be no warrant for assuming, as the authorities below have done, that the share of the losses of the six partners was 1/7th.7 ..... of the deceased partners his heirs will join the firm as partners and if any of them be a minor he will be admitted to the benefit of partnership under section 30 of the indian partnership act and the share of these heirs will be fixed out of the share of the deceased partner according to their shares.' 3. the firm constituted under the ..... be notificed that in section 2 (6-b) of the act it is provided that 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' shall have the same meaning as the indian partnership act, 1932, provided that the expression 'partner' includes any person who being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of partnership, section 4 of the indian partnership ship act defines 'partnership' as 'between persons who have agreed to share the profits ..... of a business carried by all or any of them acting for all.' under the charging section 3 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1966 (HC)

Chiman Lal Umaji and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-17-1966

Reported in : [1975]98ITR306(MP)

..... profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all, that though it is casual to find it stated in partnership instruments that there is a communion of profits and losses, an agreement ..... partners in the firm should be specified in the instrument of partnership and it was not necessary to state in what proportion they would contribute to the capital of the firm or share the losses. elaborating the argument, shri chitale stated that, under section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the ..... regard to that uncertainty which could not be resolved without any complicated inference or resort to the provisions of the partnership act, 1932, the instrument of partnership did not specify the shares of individual partners within the meaning of section 26a of the act and the refusal to renew the registration was, therefore, justified.5. having heard the counsel, we have formed ..... tribunal, bombay, has, under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, referred to this court for its opinion the following question of law '' whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the firm of m/s. chimanlal umaji and sons constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 29th september, 1954, could be denied registration on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1966 (HC)

Krishna and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-22-1966

Reported in : [1968]69ITR135(Ker)

..... , which says that the share of a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership is liable for the acts of the firm, but the minor is not personally liable for any such act. the expression act of a firm is defined in section 2(a) of the indian partnership act, 1932, as meaning, any act or omission by all the partners, or by any partner or agent of ..... personal liability on the minots, section 30(3) of the indian partnership act, 1932, is not infringed. the refusal of registration cannot be sustained.we answer question no. 1 referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and ..... done in clause 8 of the partnership deed which we then construed. if there has been no imposition of ..... to provide that the shares of the minors are liable for the acts of the firm; and that is certainly permissible under sub-section (3) of section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932.'we do not think that clause 4 in annexure 'a' and clause 11 in annexure 'b' in the two partnership deeds concerned have provided for anything other than what has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1966 (HC)

R. Sannappa and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-07-1966

Reported in : [1967]66ITR27(KAR); [1967]66ITR27(Karn); (1967)1MysLJ64

..... 'specifying the individual shares of the profits of the partners'. so far as the sharing of the losses is concerned, the same is regulated by section 13(b) of the indian partnership act. that section to the extent it is relevant for our purpose, says : 'subject to contract between the partners -........ (b) the partners are entitled to share equally in the profits earned ..... the assessment of the assessee under section 23. 'firm' is defined in section 2(6b) of the act and that definition runs thus : ''firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meaning respectively as in the indian partnership act, 1932 (ix of 1932),...' 10. in commissioner of income-tax v. bagyalakshmi & co. the supreme court laid down that except where there is a specific provision of ..... proving that they are not liable for loss lies on persons who so assert. if section 26a of the act is read with sections 4 and 13(b) of the indian partnership act, it would be seen that if an instrument of partnership specifies the individual shares of the partners in the partnership profits, without more, it follows that the losses, if any, incurred by the ..... partnership should also be shared in the same proportion in which the profits are to be shared by them. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1966 (HC)

Ramakrishna Transports, Kalahasti Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andh ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-15-1966

Reported in : AIR1968AP34; [1968]68ITR107(AP)

..... ipso facto become partners in the business so as to clothe them with all the rights and obligations of a partner as defined by the indian partnership act. in such a case the family as a unit does not become a partner but only such of its members as in fact enter into ..... . the question for consideration is where some of the joint family members be-come partners (within the meaning of the term in the partnership act) in a partnership firm can they become so only in their individual character qua their separate properly or they can as well become such partners, by reason ..... property between the coparceners themselves. the principle laid down is unexceptionable for in relation to coparcenary properly, the coparceners cannot become partners themselves. section 5 of the partnership act makes this abundantly clear. the decision of the allahabad high court is s. c. mulllck & sons. in re, (1938) 6 itr 89 is ..... the joint family. their actual shares may be much less. as representatives they are one body for purposes of hindu law as partners under the partnership act vis-avis the strangers and other partners they may be distinct. whatever the rights and liabilities vis-a-vis the other partners, they have a ..... in the naturt of trade, the rights and liabilities of coparceners constituting the family firm are therefore not to determined by exclusive reference to the partnership act. so long as the trade is being carried on by them and no strangers are associated with them in any manner its incidents must .....

Tag this Judgment!


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