Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-01-1991
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3053; 199ITR588(KAR); 199ITR588(Karn)
..... ) of the schedule. there is another notification, viz., no. ii of the same date exempting the tax payable by any partner of a firm registered under the indian partnership act and engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment specified in sl. nos. 5(b), 7(b), 13(a), 15(a), 20c(a) and 20e ..... to be noted. as per notification no. i dated may 3, 1989, the government of karnataka exempted the tax payable by any firm registered under the indian partnership act and engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment, except those specified in sl. nos. 5(b), 7(b), 13(a), 15(a), 20c ..... tax specified under any of those entries shall be applicable in his case.'9. there is no dispute that the partnership firms of the petitioners are registered under the provisions of the indian partnership act. they are engaged in the business of finance and money-lending. according to the petitioners, the amount lent by ..... 15 of 1989, with effect from april 1, 1989. by virtue of this of this each partner of firm registered under the indian partnership act and engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment is levied with an annual tax of rs. 500. this provision is challenged ..... the partners. registration is required only for certain limited purposes and non-registration affects the procedural rights of the partners, as per section 69 of the partnership act; even here, the firm or the partners may have the effect of non-registration removed, by getting it registered at the time of filling a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-01-1991
Reported in : 1991(21)DRJ53
..... him carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business.' the indian partnership act, 1932 : 'section 54. partners may, upon or in anticipation of the dissolution of the firm, make an agreement that some or all of ..... as the restraint was reasonable. section 54 of the partnership act removed the bar imposed by section 27 of the contract act. it does, however, appear to me that the plaintiffs themselves are not sure of their stand but let me set out the sections : indian contract act, 1872 : 'section 27. every agreement by ..... will not carry on a business similar to that of the firm. modification deed is no such agreement. again, thereforee, section 54 of the partnership act is inapplicable. section 55 is also not applicable. the firm competent builders had not been dissolved and no question of setting the accounts would arise ..... of competent builders 8 kms. clause was introduced in order to avoid confusion as well. there is no term as 'partial dissolution' under the partnership act. rather this terms appears to be misnomer and cannot best be applied in the case of a retiring partner. it cannot be applied when a ..... , illegality and was against public policy. i have already held that the clause is void under section 27 of the contract act and section 54 and 55 of the partnership act do not apply to the facts of the case. (19) traditional weighing of the factors in granting temporary injunction has been .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-09-1991
Reported in : AIR1993Guj41
..... different treatement has nexus with the object to be achieved. if an individual wants to do business in the land by forming a partnership, such partnership will be a 'person' as defined under the act. partnership as per the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 means the relationship between persons who have agreed to share the profits of business carried on by all or any. of ..... them acting for all. be it noted that the definition of the partnership as per the provisions of the indian partnership act, 1932 speaks of relationship between the persons and not between individuals. again such relation comes into existence by agreement with an object ..... to share profits of business. therefore, individuals/partners who want to carry on the business in the land and who forms partnership for this purpose cannot be ..... . 3. that one co-owner can without the consent of the other, transfer his interest, etc. to, a stranger. a partner cannot do this. 4. in a partnership each partner acts as a agent of the other. in a co-ownership one co-owner is not as such the agent, real or implied, of the other.' the observations made by the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-01-1991
Reported in : (1991)1MLJ346
..... in support of his contention is ex. b-8. ex. b-8 is the certified copy of form a maintained by the registrar of firms under section 59 of the indian partnership act relating to the firm raja theatres. ex. x-1 is the original of ex. b-8. ex. x-2 is an application dated 1.3.1979 presented by one kumar ..... as ex. b-1, the ledger entry marked as ex. b-5 and the certified copy of form 'a' maintained by the registrar of firms under section 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 ..... and 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. admittedly such a notice as contemplated in section 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 ..... writing to the other partners as contemplated in section 32(1)(c) of the partnership act. section 32(1) of the partnership act provides that a partner may retire with the consent of all other partners and in accordance with the express agreement between the partners or where the partnership is at will by giving notice in writing to the other partners of his intention .....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!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Decided on : Dec-09-1991
Reported in : (1994)48ITD210(Chd.)
..... under rule 2 of the income-tax rules.18. in malabar fisheries co.'s case (supra), their lordships of the hon'ble supreme court have held 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 ..... he emphasised for the purpose that the meaning of the above three has to be taken as assigned to these words in the indian partnership act, 1932. he as such contended that a partner and a firm are the same entity since persons joining hands for a common purpose and economic ends, individually are called partners ..... the indian partnership act, 1932.27. in a way, then with three different capacities of the same person, it can safely ..... , if the assessee-firm is not to be taken a separate legal entity under the general law - indian partnership act, 1932, which it has to be taken as such in view of definitions of "firm", "partner" and "partnership" under clause (23) of section 2 of the income-tax act, 1961. therein, the meaning of the above three words have to be taken as assigned in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-1991
Reported in : AIR1992Delhi92; 1991RLR544
..... j.(1) two questions arise in this suit. the first one being whether the suit is liable to;be dismissed in view of section 69 of the indian partnership act, partnership being un-registered on the date of filing of the suit and in case the suit is to be dismissed, the second question would, be whether the ..... & on. v. balsara hygiene products limited suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 69 of the said partnership act and the view taken by the i rial court and confirmed by the high court in the connection is correct. although the plaint was amended on a later ..... 6. hi the present case the suit filed by the appellants is clearly his by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 69 of (be said partnership act, as on the date when the suit was filed, two of the partners show as partners as per ffi(r) relevant entries in the register of firms were ..... the date of filing of the suit and as such the suit would be hit by-the provisions of sub- section 2 of section 69 of the partnership act. fur this proposition there are during of authorities both of the various high courts as well as the supreme court. 'however, it is not necessary io ..... wherein a preliminary objection has been taken that the suit is not maintainable able as the firm; m/8:subhagya agencies is not registered under the partnership act. upon merits it is averred by the defendant that during the subsistance of the last agreement the defendant by its letter dated august 31,1988 addressed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-07-1991
Reported in : (1991)(33)ECC73
..... a firm cannot be a relative of another firm. he relied upon the following decisions :- 1. air 1948 p.c. 100 - bhagwanji morarji goculdas v. alembic chemical works co.:- the indian partnership act recognises that a firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it and the provisions of sections 22, 48 & 55 of the income tax ..... act also go to show that the technical view of the nature of a partnership in english or indian law cannot be taken to applying the law of income-tax. it is true that under the law of ..... that under that law, there is no dissolution of the firm by the mere incoming or outgoing of partners. the law with respect to retiring partners as enacted in the partnership act is to a certain extent a compromise between the strict doctrine of english common law which refuses to see anything in the firm but a collective name for individuals carrying ..... in law and in practice, when a firm has been treated as having a distinct personality from those of the partners. thus, partnership firm is a person or an entity having an independent and distinct existence liable for its acts. however, since we have already taken the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, mutuality of interest between the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Decided on : Dec-18-1991
Reported in : (1992)40ITD507(Coch.)
..... fact, the hon'ble high court of kerala in paulson constructions v. cit [ 1990] 181 itr476, held as per head notes as follows: section 47 of the indian partnership act, 1932, says that on the dissolution of a firm, the authority of each partner to bind the firm, and the other mutual rights and obligation of the partners, continue ..... belonging to the fine.the deed is silent, about the ownership of the property by the partnership firm. under the provisions of the partnership act, a partner can certainly assign his interest in the partnership property, though such interest cannot be predicated during the subsistence of the partnership. the sale deed executed by shri kaladharan having specified she share individually in the properties of ..... for that reason, the less effectual in putting an end to his liability--jefferys v. smith  27 rr 49.no doubt, the indian courts have held that upon assignment or transfer of interest by a partner, the partnership does not come to an end. but such a proposition can be advanced only when there are more than two partners and one ..... the partnership firm, it cannot be said that shri kaladharan has in law conveyed his interest in the partnership property. the .....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.income-tax reference no. 13 of 1985 relates to the assessment year 1978-79, income-tax reference no. 3 of ..... 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 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 ..... 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 wife/minor child from a partnership firm can be included in assessing the income of a person who was also a partner of the firm .....Tag this Judgment!