Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-01-1991
Reported in : AIR1992Mad227; (1991)IMLJ346
..... second respondent in support of his contention is ex.b8. ex.b8 is the certified copy of form a maintained by the registrar of firms under s. 59 of the indian partnership act relating to the firm raja theatres. ex. x1 is the original of ex.b8. ex.b2 is an application dated 1-3-1989 presented by one kumar to the registrar ..... as early as on 31-12-1978. the agreement as ex. b5 and the certified copy of form 'a' maintained by the registrar of firms under s. 59 of the indian partnership act marked as ex. b.8 in this case will go to show that the first respondent was not having any interest in the ..... there was no consent of all other partners for his retirement. as a result a notice in writing expressing his intention to the partnership act (sic). admittedly such a notice as contemplated in s. 32(1)(c) of the partnership act was not given by the first respondent to the other partners of the firm. in such circumstances, the case of the second respondent ..... /s. raja theatres. ex.a1 shows that the partnership m/s. theatres is a partnership at will. in the case of a partnership at will, a partner can retire from the partnership by giving notice in writing to the other partners as contemplated in s. 31(1)(c) of the partnership act. s. 32(1) of the partnership act provides that a partner may retire with the consent .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-22-1991
Reported in : (1992)102CTR(Ori)36; 196ITR736(Orissa)
..... any part in the specified item of the property did not arise. the contention of learned standing counsel appears to be legally sound.5. a partnership-firm under the indian partnership act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the partnership act'), 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 the partnership assets and when one talks of the firm's property or the firm's assets, all that is meant is property or assets ..... partner may assign his share to another. but what is permissible in that regard is laid down in section 29(1) of the partnership act, that is to say, the right to receive the share of profits of the assignor and accept the account of profits agreed to by the partners. a similar view expressed ..... have a joint or common interest, (see malabar fisheries co. v. cit : 120itr49(sc) .)6. the provisions of sections 14, 15, 29, 32, 37, 38 and 48 of the partnership act, 1932, make it clear that whatever may be the character of the property which is brought in by the partners when the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-14-1991
Reported in : AIR1992Bom418; 1992(1)BomCR700; 1991(2)MhLj1366
..... undertakings (taking over of management) ordinance, 1983. a few facts lending to the present controversy may be stated as under :2. the first petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 carrying on business as dealers and suppliers of yarn. the second petitioner is the partner of the first petitioner firm. on 7th october, 1983, the ..... first petitioner supplied a consignment comprising 497.27 kgs. of standard polyester textures nirlon. yarn, to the third respondent-company which is a textile undertaking covered by the said 1983 act. the said ..... of the petitioners have been dishonoured, the petitioners have filed the present petition for the reliefs inter alia for declaration that the provisions of the 1983 ordinance and the 1983 act referred to above are unconstitutional and for a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to desist from withholding the payment due to the petitioners and for a further direction ..... undertaking and in force immediately before the appointed day shall be deemed to have terminated on the appointed day.' similarly sub-section (7) of s. 3 of the said 1983 act, reads as under :'sec. 3(7). for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any liability incurred by a textile company in relation to the textile undertaking .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Aug-08-1991
..... law point involved is the same, that is the interpretation of section 2(23) and section 64(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, for short the 'act', and section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932. 3. income-tax reference no. 13 of 1985 relates to the assessment year 1978-79, income-tax reference no. 3 ..... section 64 of the income-tax act, 1961, the assessee-individual was not the partner of the firm and whether the share of profits arising in the hands ..... , 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(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the tribunal was justified in dismissing the departmental appeals impliedly holding the view that the share of profits from ..... application under section 256(2) of the act. by the said application the following question was sought to be referred to this court (at p. 420): 'whether, on the fads 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 ..... of the tribunal. thus we find that no specific law was laid down regarding section 64 of the act regarding' the question as to whether the income of the wife/minor child from a partnership firm can be included in assessing the income of a person who was also a partner of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Decided on : Sep-25-1991
Reported in : (1991)39ITD520(Mad.)
..... in the profits would be credited to the current account of the partners concerned. clause-16 stipulated that, as respects matters not covered by the deed, the provisions of the indian partnership act would apply. on 30-11-1986 a deed of retirement was executed, which witnessed the exit of dinakaran and mahendran from the firm from the said date. this was followed ..... hand, and on the other, the sums advanced by him to the firm for the purposes of its business. as elucidated by pollock and mulla in their commentary on the indian partnership act, the principle of sub-section (c) of section 13 is that a partner, as regards the capital brought by him into the business, is not a creditor of the firm ..... have for some specific purposes relaxed their rigid notions and extended a limited personality to a firm. the specific purposes noticed by the supreme court are:- section 49 of the indian partnership act-(i) liabilities of the firm are regarded as those of the partners, only in case they cannot be met and discharged by the firm out of its assets.(ii) liabilities ..... the question whether at all a firm/ association can be a debtor to its partners/members and, if so, in what circumstances. it is here that the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 come into the picture.18. it is well settled that, unlike the scottish law, which invests a firm with a personality of its own, the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Decided on : Nov-25-1991
Reported in : (1992)40ITD424(Hyd.)
..... had time to determine whether he should become a full-fledged partner or not till 19-3-1982 under the provisions of section 30(5) of the indian partnership act, 1932 and therefore since 19-3-1982 falls within six months to 31-3-1982 shri sudershan should be deemed to have enjoyed the same status in ..... parlhasarathy, learned counsel for the assessee contended that in the event of the minor becoming major and in the absence of a new partnership deed, the provisions of section 30(7) of the indian partnership act apply. shri parthasarathy relied upon that the clause of form no. 12 clearly shows that there is no change in the profit ..... feel it very hard to accept this contention of shri parthasarathy, learned counsel for the assessee. under the provisions of section 30(5) of the indian partnership act, 1932, a minor can elect to become a full-fledged partner on attaining majority within six months of the date on which he attains the ..... liable to share in losses also. in case losses arc borne in entirely by only some of the partners the partnership deed would still be a valid one. further section 30(7)(b) of the indian partnership act lays down that where a minor elects to continue as a partner, his share in the property and profits ..... will not have the share of losses and that any sort of agreement in that regard would not offend any provision of the indian partnership act, 1932. in that case also, the tribunal had followed the board circular dated 4-4-1978 cited supra and held that no fresh .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-25-1991
Reported in : (1991)98CTR(Ker)12; 195ITR716(Ker)
..... free consent of the parties who are competent to contract must be there. as a minor is incompetent to enter into a partnership, the partnership was held to be contrary to the relevant provisions of the indian contract act and the indian partnership act. the partnership deed was held to be invalid. hence, it was held that the income-tax officer, in exercising his power of cancellation ..... to whether there is or is not a genuine firm in existence, the income-tax officer is required to consider the validity of the deed of partnership. the definition of partnership under section 4 of the indian partnership act contains three elements : (a) there must be an agreement entered into by all the persons concerned ; (b) the agreement must be to share the ..... in mahabir prasad kishanlal and co. v. cit , a division bench of the gauhati high court held that, if the deed of partnership is invalid in law offending any of the provisions of the indian partnership act or the indian contract act, the income-tax officer can legally hold that registration was obtained without there being a firm in existence and, therefore, such registration is ..... of the total income of the previous year of every person. under section 2(31) of the act, 'person' will include a firm. 'firm' has been defined in section 2(23) by reference to the indian partnership act. section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932, defines partnership as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Decided on : Oct-10-1991
Reported in : (1992)40ITD3(Coch.)
..... old firm was dissolved with effect from 1-10-1981 by the mutual consent of all the partners. this is one of the modes prescribed under section 40 of the indian partnership act, 1932, which reads as follows : -- 40. dissolution by agreement - a firm shall be dissolved with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with a contract between the partners ..... for interpretation in cit v. raj bros  165 itr 720 (ap). their lordships of the andhra pradesh high court held as follows : -- a partnership firm is essentially governed by the provisions of the indian partnership act and the dissolution of the partnership could be brought about statutorily under the indian partnership act by any of the modes referred to in sections 40 to 44 of the said ..... . the dissolution of a partnership firm by any of the modes set out in sections 40 to 44 brings about the legal death of a ..... contention that by introducing the proviso after sub-section (2) of section 187 of the income-tax act, 1961, the act sought to recognise only a dissolution brought about by death of any of the partners within the meaning of section 42(c) of the indian partnership act and to derecognise all other forms of dissolution envisaged by sections 40 to 44 is wholly insupportable .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Decided on : Oct-28-1991
Reported in : (1992)40ITD390(Mad.)
..... by the madras high court in the case of r.m.chidambaram pillai v. cit 771tr 494 (fb) that precisely is the legal position of a firm under the indian partnership act as well.23. in the case before us the assessee claims revenue deduction in respect of a sum of rs. 1,39,900, a sum which consists of the excess ..... looked into the facts of the case. we have considered the rival submissions.17. in this case two branches of law, namely the income-tax act, 1961 and the indian partnership act, 1932 meet and cross. under the income-tax act, it is well settled, any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is revenue deductible. here, commercial expediency is one of ..... in the case of bhagwanji morarji goculdas v. alembic chemical works co. ltd. air 1948 pc 100 the indian partnership act, 1932 goes further than the english partnership act, 1890 in recognising that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it. the indian law in that respect is more in accord with the scottish law than with the english law. yet the ..... . cit  29 itr 535. in that case also the question was whether a firm can enter into a partnership with another firm or individuals. after noticing, inter alia, the aforesaid two reported cases, the supreme court held that even under the indian partnership act, 1932, a firm is not regarded as an entity separate and distinct from the members composing it; and that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Decided on : Sep-30-1991
Reported in : (1992)40ITD456(Mad.)
..... the same question was considered by the supreme court in the case of dulichand laxminarayan v. cit  29 itr 535 and the supreme court held that, even under the indian partnership act, 1932, a firm is not regarded as an entity separate and distinct from the members composing it, and that this position in law is not in any way altered merely ..... a short-hand name for a collection of persons, commercially convenient but not legally recognised". it is this principle that has been incorporated, inter alia, in section 13 of the indian partnership act, 1932. that section deals with the mutual rights and liabilities of the partners. sub-section (c) of the section stipulates that where a partner is entitled to interest on the ..... morarji goculdas v. alembic chemical works co. ltd. air 1948 pc 100, even though the indian partnership act, 1932 goes further than the english partnership act, 1890 in recognising that the firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it, yet the indian act, like the english act, avoids making a firm a corporate body enjoying the right of perpetual succession.in the case of ..... the case law on the subject, the nagpur high court ruled that, even though the indian partnership act, 1932 treats the firm as distinct from its members in certain respects, yet it does not invest the firm with a it gal personality capable of entering into a partnership with another firm or individuals. in that regard, the court further ruled that the definition .....Tag this Judgment!