Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 148 results (0.064 seconds)

Jan 11 1980 (HC)

P.N. Sarmah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Jan-11-1980

..... the aac, who reversed the order of the ito and allowed registration to the firm for the assessment year 1968-69. the aac, relied on section 30(5), of the indian partnership act, and held that in the instant case six months had not expired from the date of attaining majority by ved prakash and that ved prakash continued to remain as minor ..... sarmah20%nilbut as and when the minor above named attains majority and becomes also a partner in the firm, in accordance with the provisions of section 30(5) of the indian partnership act, 1932, the share of all the then partners shall be 20% both in profit as well as in loss (if any) with effect from the deewali year next commencing after ..... attain majority. it provides that the minor on attainment of majority shall become a partner in the firm in accordance with the provisions of section 30(5) of the indian partnership act, 1932, and further provides that :' the share of all the then partners shall be 20% both in profit as well as in loss (if any) with effect from the deewali ..... the consequence if ' such a person ' does not express, on attaining majority or on obtaining knowledge that he had been admitted to the benefits of partnership all these consequences are expressed in section 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. section 30 lays down that : (a) a minor cannot be a partner in a firm, but with the consent of all the partners he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1980 (HC)

Ashiyana Greens Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-09-1980

Reported in : [1981]132ITR497(Ker)

..... that 'in the other respects, not hereunder expressly provided for, the rights and liabilities of the firm as well as among the partners inter se, shall be governed by the indian partnership act'. the minors attained majority on december 26, 1963, august 28, 1966, august 14, 1967, and february 23, 1969, respectively, during the relative assessment years 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69 ..... ' means a person by whom agricultural income-tax is payable and under section 2(m) 'person' means, inter alia, a firm. section 2(k) states that 'firm' 'partner' and 'partnership' have the same meanings respectively as in the indian partnership act, 1932, and that the expression 'partner' shall also include any person who being a minor has been admitted to the benefits of the ..... partnership. section 18(5)(a) provides that when the total income of a registered firm has been assessed, the sum payable by the firm itself shall not be determined but the ..... laxmi narain v. cit : [1968]68itr696(all) was a case under section 26a, indian i.t. act, 1922, and it supports the conclusion of the commissioner. it was held in that case that while under the partnership act it was not necessary for a minor on attaining majority to execute a partnership deed along with the existing partners as he would be deemedto have become .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1980 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Tamil Nadu-v Vs. S. Sivaprakasa Mudaliar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-03-1980

Reported in : [1983]144ITR285(Mad); (1983)IIMLJ419

..... surplus assets to the same extent to which his transfer would have been entitled if there has been no assignment-vide s. 29 of the indian partnership act 1932. where a partner assigned his share to another partner, and not to a stranger the only result of it would be a reduction in ..... inter vivos as any other species of property; it is also subject to devolution on succession by death of the partner. section 37 of the partnership act is an indication that the interest of a partner would devolve on his harries or other legal personal representatives. for, this section provides that the ..... the assignment becomes complete as between the assignor and the assignee, m irrespective of the consequences in terms of the partnership status. 10. section 29 of the partnership act apparently convert an assignment of a partnership interest inter vivos. order 21, r. 49 of the cpc provides for an involuntary transfer of the interest of ..... be rendered, or enable any of the other partners to buy off the judgment-debtor's interest in the partnership. 10. the provisions of s. 29 of the partnership act and of o. 21, r. 49, clearly show that a partner's interest as such, is not only a species of ..... family property does not amount to 'transfer' within the meaning of the relevant provision in the tamil nadu agricultural income-tax act. this court further held that when once the partnership interest becomes joint family property by this process, the income flowing therefrom has to be taken as the income of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1980 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gaurishankar Agarwalla

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : May-13-1980

..... -tax act, 1961, the tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-individual, shri gaurishankar agarwalla, was not the partner of the firm, m/s. chandulal ..... numbered applications are under section 256(2) of the i.t. act, 1961, asking this court to call for a statement from the tribunal on the following question of law : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, section 2(23) and section 64 of the income ..... the hands of the minor sons of the assessee in the said firm were not includible in the assessment of the assessee under section 64(ii) of the income-tax act, 1961?' 2. we have very carefully perused the order of the tribunal and find that there is a categorical finding recorded by the tribunal to the effect that shri gaurishinkar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1980 (HC)

Ganesh Dal Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-30-1980

Reported in : [1982]136ITR762(MP)

..... , the question has been referred to us for opinion.6. chapter xvi of the i.t. act makes special provisions applicable to firms. section 2(23) of the act defines 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' as having the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act. part c of chap. xvi refers to changes in the constitution,. succession and dissolution. before we ..... v(sections 31 to 35) of the partnership act refers to the effect of ..... consider the language of sections 187 and 188 of the act, we may refer to the provisions in the partnership act on the incidents of partnership.7. chapter ..... 187(2) explains what is 'change in the constitution of a firm'. this explanation does not make any departure from the expression as used in the partnership act. section 26(1) of the indian i.t. act, 1922, did not contain any such definition or explanation, but the interpretation was always the same. 'any change in constitution', as explained under section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 1980 (HC)

Ramchand Nawalrai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-13-1980

Reported in : (1981)20CTR(MP)50; [1981]130ITR826(MP)

..... the parties must decide that for themselves'. (see lindley, 14th edn., p. 119).5. the definition of partnership as contained in section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, does not make it obligatory that the partners must combine their property for sharing profits by constituting a partnership. the definition contained in section 4 is in line with the english law that any consideration such ..... , as contribution of skill and labour by a person would be sufficient to support the agreement of partnership. indeed, it ..... and 30 percent., respectively. it was claimed that the business of the huf was carried on in the relevant previous year by the partnership. an application for registration of the partnership was filed under section 185 of the act. the ito held that there was no division in the huf and as all the funds invested in the so-called firm had ..... a share in the business. as stated by lindley, 'any contribution in the shape of capital or labour, or any act which may result in liability to third parties, is a sufficient consideration to support a partnership agreement'. (lindley on partnership, 14th edn., p. 119). the legal position that contribution of labour and skill by a partner are sufficient to support .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 1980 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-ii Vs. Bhupinder Singh Atwal

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-05-1980

Reported in : (1981)20CTR(Cal)291,[1981]128ITR67(Cal)

..... supreme court was again reiterated by the supreme court in the case of malabar fisheries co. v. cit : [1979]120itr49(sc) , wherein the supreme court held that a partnership firm under the indian partnership act, 1932, was not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally in law a firm as such had no separate rights of its own in ..... by the supreme court. in the case of malabar fisheries co. v. cit : [1979]120itr49(sc) , the supreme court referred to lindley on partnership and observed at page 59 of the report that a partnership firm under the indian partnership act, 1932, was not a distinct legal entity apart from the partners constituting it and equally in law a firm as such had no separate ..... rights of its own in the partnership assets and when one talked about the firm's property or firm's assets all that was meant ..... the partnership assets and when one talked of a firm's property or the firm's assets all that was meant was the property or assets in which all partners .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 1980 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eclat Auto Agency

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-07-1980

Reported in : [1981]131ITR21(P& H)

..... application on the ground that this was a case where one of the partners, shri charanjit lal aggarwal, had been expelled from the partnership which could not be done in view of the provisions of section 33 of the indian partnership act. according to him, therefore, no genuine or valid firm with the former partners came into existence on 1st april, 1969, and thus ..... firm as well. it is not open to us to go behind the facts so found by the authorities below. that being so, the provisions of section 43 of the partnership act stand fully satisfied. thus, the tribunal was right in concluding that it was a case of dissolution of the firm and not expulsion of a partner. we, therefore, answer question ..... this was not a case of expulsion of one partner by the other four partners of the firm, but was one of dissolution under section 43 of the partnership act. he found that the partnership was at will and when one of the partners had given notice to shri charanjit lal aggarwal with copies to others that the firm would stand dissolved with ..... stand dissolved with effect from 31st march, 1969, was not sent to the other partners of the firm and thus the provisions of section 43 of the partnership act have not been satisfied. we are unable to agree with this contention. the aac recorded a categorical finding that copies of this notice were sent to all the partners of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 1980 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amber Corporation

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-04-1980

Reported in : [1981]127ITR29(Raj)

..... sahay mall rameshwar dayal v. bish-wanath prasad, : air1963pat221 and sudhansu kanta v. manindra nath, : air1965pat144 .7. section 14 of the indian partnership act reads as under:'14. subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interest in property originally ..... transfer could be given effect to, and the property known as rambagh palace cannot be considered to have been contributed towards the assets of the partnership in the absence of registration, it is, thus, contended that the question of depreciation on such property does not arise at all and the ..... as 'the assessee', was a firm consisting of five partners, namely, the late h.h. sawai man singhji of jaipur and his four sons. the partnership was formed to carry on hotel business at jaipur in december, 1957. a few months earlier to it, i.e., on march 18, 1957, the ..... interests which the partners may have brought into the common stock as their contribution to the common business are parts of the partnership property. even if a property contributed by one partner be an immovable property, no document registered or otherwise, is required for transferring the property ..... their contribution towards the assets of the partnership did not require registration? 2, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, in respect of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1980 (HC)

Gupta Steel Industries and ors. Vs. Balbir Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-17-1980

Reported in : AIR1980P& H215

..... of a receiver having been declined, the lower appellate court directed the local commissioner to take control of the assets of the partnership and apply the same in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the indian partnership act (hereinafter called the act). these are the functions of a receiver and not of a local commissioner. the local commissioner can only take accounts and ..... he cannot take possession of the assets of the partnership and apply them in accordance with the provisions of the partnership act. in support of this, the learned counsel has ..... have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, a combined reading of sections 46 and 48 of the act shows that after dissolution of the partnership, the partners cannot manage its affairs. one partner cannot bind the others. the assets have to be applied in the discharge of debts etc, and the residue ..... 2nd of may, 1978. after this date the defendant-appellants had no right to manage the affairs of the partnership. they could not deal with the assets of the firm. in view of the provisions of sections 46, 47 and 48 of the act, after the dissolution of the firm, however, a partner has n right to have the property of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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