Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1982 Page 1 of about 173 results (0.068 seconds)

Nov 29 1982 (HC)

Mahavir Industrial Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-29-1982

Reported in : [1984]145ITR299(MP)

..... the pners of the firm in favour of one kailashchandra and that conferring of such wide powers on an attorney was contrary to the provisions of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932. in this view of the matter, the tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the department and restored the order passed by the ito. aggrieved by that order, the applicant ..... also govern the disposal of misc. civil cases no. 104, 105 and 100 all of 1981 as these applications under section 256(2) of the i.t. act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the act'), arise out of a common order passed by the tribunal. the assessment years in question are 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. the applicant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1982 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i Vs. Shambulal Nathalal and Com ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-06-1982

Reported in : (1984)39CTR(Kar)195; [1984]145ITR329(KAR); [1984]145ITR329(Karn); [1985]23TAXMAN93(Kar)

..... 194 of 110 itr) : 'a perusal of the aforementioned authorities shows that where a special provision was made in a taxing statute in derogation of the provisions of the indian partnership act, the effect was given to it and where no such provision had been made,decision regarding liability for payment of tax was made while taking into consideration the general provisions ..... does not seek to define of interpret dissolution of a firm. the concept of dissolution, therefore, has to be understood in the context of general law as also of the indian partnership act.' 24. the majority decision in nandlal sohanlal's case [fb] is representative of the opposite view. referring to the consequences of the death of a partner, an event ..... of the indian partnership act. it is, therefore, obvious that where the provisions of the indian income-tax act are clear, resort cannot be had to the provisions of another statute like the indian partnership act. this view taken by the division bench of this court in dharam pal sat dev's ..... it has already been noticed that if one of the partners dies or an additional partner is introduced in a partnership, a new partnership comes into existence, if the case is viewed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the indian partnership act, but the act makes a through departure from these concepts and expressly provides that such changes would ensure continuity of the firm as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 1982 (HC)

Baldevji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-13-1982

Reported in : [1985]156ITR776(Mad)

..... its business. it is true that the indian partnership act goes farther than the english partnership act, 1890, in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it, the law in india in that respect being more in ..... these provisions apparently led the privy council to observe in bhagwanji morarji goculdas v. alembic chemical works. , as follows (p. 101) : 'before the board it was argued that under the indian partnership act, 1932, a firm is recognised as an entity apart from the persons constituting it and that the entity continues so long as the firm exists and continues to carry on ..... been forced to depart from the strict legal view of the firm considering that it contains appropriate provisions of changes in the constitution and the like. the framers of the indian partnership act, therefore, have accepted, in principle, the position that the firm must have some degree of personality, of continuity in its existence, in spite of internal changes. this explains the ..... case, however, the pertinent discussion was not whether a firm was an assessable entity under the income-tax act, but whether a firm can be regarded as a 'person' within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932. that section defines a partnership as the relation between 'persons' who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1982 (HC)

Yusuf Vs. Hamidulla

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-05-1982

Reported in : 1982WLN172

..... ) (for short 'the act' hereinafter). there are various modes of dissolution of the partnership firm and the partnership has not been dissolved by any of the modes.(2) that the plaintiff has a strong prima ..... facie case in his favour, for exclusion of one partner from the partnership entitles the excluded partner to the ..... following grounds:(1) that the partnership firm has not been dissolved as accounts between the parties were neither rendered nor gone into nor any amount payable by one partner to the other was arrived at and during the course of trial of the suit, the plaintiff can well show that the partnership has not been dissolved under the indian partnership act (no. ix of 1932 ..... the plaintiff, which has been denied by the learned counsel for the defendants no. 1, 3, 4 and 5. according to clause 24 of the partnership deed, the partners had agreed that partnership relations would be governed by the provisions of the act. provisions as to the consequences ensuing from the dissolution of the firm have been provided in clause 27 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 1982 (HC)

Shah Nemji Chitarmal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-06-1982

Reported in : 1982WLN(UC)441

..... been marked as annexure 2 and which clearly proves that shah nemji chitarmal jain, baran was a firm registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932. thus, there could be no doubt on a consideration of the entire circumstances, of the case, that the plaintiff in the suit was a registered ..... lower appellate court that the notice under section 80 c.p.c. was not given on behalf of the person who filed the suit namely the partnership firm m/s shah nemji chitarmal jain and as such the notice was defective and consequently the suit was not maintainable in the absence of a proper ..... the plaintiff and the contents of para no. 1 of the plaint create an impression that the suit has been filed on behalf of the required partnership firm m/s shah nemji chitarmal. therefore, reading both the notice and the plaint together, it cannot be held that there was identity of the person ..... behalf of firm shah nemji chitarmal jain, but it has also been clearly stated in para 1 of the plaint that the plaintiff firm was registered partnership concern and shanti kumar has been described as 'a partner and proprietor.' moreover, the plaintiff produced on the record of the suit a certified copy ..... specification that he was the proprietor of shah nemji chitarmal was merely a description, while the suit was filed on behalf of shah namji chitarmal a partnership firm and, therefore, the person who filed the suit was different from the person who gave the notice. the two courts below relying upon the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1982 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Muzaffar HussaIn Iqbal Hussain

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-03-1982

Reported in : (1983)3ITD559(All.)

..... and loss of the capital to the extent of 3 per cent, 6 per cent and 6 per cent respectively), which was against the requirements of section 30 of the indian partnership act. another point made out by shri upadhyay was that for purposes of income-tax, each year of assessment was separate and self-contained and, therefore, once a share of ..... of mahabir prasad kishanlal & co. v. cit [1976] 102 itr 466 submitted to us that if an instrument of partnership offended or was contrary to the relevant provisions of the indian partnership act or the indian contract act, the partnership was not valid and such a partnership was not entitled to claim registration. proceeding further, our attention was invited to the ruling of the bombay high court ..... hereto of the 1st to 11th part are partners and rafat qaiyum, faisal ayub and firoz ayub all minors, are admitted to the benefits of the partnership in accordance with the provisions of the indian partnership act. in confirmation of these presents and in token of acceptance of the benefits conferred hereinabove on the aforesaid minors, the aforesaid shri abdul qaiyum, as ..... the minor. he, therefore, submitted that the condition of contribution of capital for the minor being admitted to the benefits of partnership did not militate or offend either the provisions of the indian partnership act or the indian contract act and on this account the partnership deed cannot be said to be invalid.proceeding further shri gulati read to us the various portions of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1982 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Patel Brothers

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-05-1982

Reported in : (1983)34CTR(Bom)1; [1984]145ITR614(Bom)

..... supreme court in malabar fisheries company's case : [1979]120itr49(sc) as follows(p. 59) :'having regard to the above discussion, 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 rights of its own in ..... 122. in these circumstances to import the definition of the word 'person' occurring in section 3(42) of the general clauses act, 1897, into section 4 of the indian partnership act will, according to lawyers, english or indian, be totally repugnant to the subject of partnership law as they know and understand it to be.''20. in chidambaram pillai's case : [1977]10itr292(sc) , the supreme ..... to certain relevant provision of law. under s. 2(31) of the i.t. act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the act', 'person' in cludes a firm. under s. 2(23) of the act 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' are defined as having the meaning respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932. it is further stated that the expression 'partner' shall also include any person ..... that when one of the partners dies or retires, having regard to the special provision in the deed of partnership that there is no dissolution of the firm, the same firm continues. it may be pointed out that s. 42 of the indian partnership act provides, inter alia, that subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved by the death of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1982 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tapang Light Foundry and Co.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-29-1982

Reported in : [1984]147ITR581(Cal)

..... of the partners of the partnership business cannot be attached but provisions as regards retirement will follow if any attachment is made on the share of any partner due to his ..... the question, it is necessary to bear in mind the provisions of section 2(23) of the i.t. act, 1961, which provides the definition of a ' firm' and ' partnership' and states that they have the same meaning assigned to them by the indian partnership act, 1932. it is made clear that the expression ' partners ' should also include any person, being a minor who has ..... been admitted to the benefits of partnership. section 4 of the partnership act states that partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on ..... of the assets of the partnership and for such borrowing the whole of the partnership shall be bound and liable.... 11. that the assets of the partnership business shall be the assets of the firm and no partner shall have any right title or interest in whole or in part thereof save and except as is provided under the indian partnership act. 18. that the share .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1982 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gaekwade Vasappa and So ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-12-1982

Reported in : (1983)34CTR(AP)115; [1983]143ITR1(AP)

..... two sons, viz., tikoji rao and satyanarayana, would be entitled to a 1/4th share each in all the assets of the partnership firm. this is obviously a misapprehension in law. section 48 of the indian partnership act says that : 'in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, the following rules shall, subject to agreement by the partners, be observed :-... (b) the assets ..... in the conduct of the business and s. 13(a) of the act says that a partner is not entitled to receive remuneration for taking part in the conduct of the ..... his best including his skill and labour for the beneficial conduct of the partnership business, there is no such thing as contribution of labour and skill by a partner. again this seems to be not a correct understanding of law. it is true that s. 12(b) of the indian partnership act says that every partner is bound to attend diligently to his duties ..... matter for ourselves. 8. in sundar singh majithia v. cit [1942] 10 itr 457 the privy council held that s. 25a of the indian i.t. act does not prohibit members of an huf from entering into a partnership in respect of a portion of the joint property, which they have partitioned among themselves. in that case, an huf consisting of a father .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 1982 (SC)

Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-iii Vs. Pigot Champan and Comp ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-1982

Reported in : AIR1982SC1085; (1982)30CTR(SC)375; [1982]135ITR620(SC); 1982(1)SCALE371; (1982)2SCC330; 1982(14)LC359(SC)

..... of variation and the deed dated 30th of march, 1959 held that the assessee firm must be regarded as having been dissolved under section 40 of the indian partnership act in terms of the deed dated 30-3-1959, that as the retiring partner had given up all claims to his share in the goodwill and assets of the firm ..... on any business, profession or vocation on which tax was at any time charged under the provisions of the indian income-lax act, 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 income, profits and gains ..... to the old business contemplated under section 25(4) need not be and cannot be confined to the instances mentioned by counsel for the appellant. under section 40 of the partnership act, 1932 a firm can be dissolved with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with the contract between the partners; under section 43 a ..... term of six years from 1-4-1953 and as such the same would automatically stand dissolved under section 42(a) of the partnership act on 31-3-1959; (b) under the deed dated 30th of march, 1959 the partnership between mclean, ablitt and roy was in terms 'dissolved by mutual consent as from 1st april, 1959;' (c) the document expressly states both .....

Tag this Judgment!

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