Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1996 Page 1 of about 284 results (0.065 seconds)

Jan 30 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shankar Cottons

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-30-1996

Reported in : (1997)137CTR(Mad)583; [1996]222ITR445(Mad)

..... and dumb person. a deaf and dumb person cannot be admitted to the benefits of the partnership as per the provisions of s. 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. sec. 6 of the indian partnership act, 1932, determines the mode of existence of the partnership. expln. 2 to s. 6 of the indian partnership act states, who are all the persons who can receive a share in the profit of ..... the partnership business without making them as partners. sec. 30 of the indian partnership act states that a person who is a ..... along with the persons carrying on the business. it would mean that a major cannot be admitted to the benefits of partnership. admitting a major as a partner to the benefits of partnership was impliedly prohibited under s. 30 of the indian partnership act, 1932. 7. in view of the abovesaid legal position, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the tribunal ..... subject may not be a partner in a firm, but, with the consent of all the partners for the time being, he may be admitted to the benefits of the partnership. therefore, s. 30 of the indian partnership act provides that a minor cannot be a partner in a firm, but a minor can be admitted to the benefits of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1996 (HC)

J.D. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : May-31-1996

..... clause, it is abundantly made clear that the minor was admitted to the benefits of the firm and his rights and liabilities should be governed by section 30 of the indian partnership act and under section 30, a minor cannot be saddled with liabilities and he is not required to share losses though in clause (5), it has been mentioned, 'the profits and ..... .9. before we consider the rival contentions of the parties, it will be apposite to examine the deed of partnership and also to look to some of the relevant provisions of the indian partnership act as well as the income-tax act. we find the deed of partnership at pages 36 to 39 of the paper book. in the said deed, it has been recited as ..... firm to the extent of his share in the firm as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 30 of the indian partnership act. the appellate tribunal found that the deed was valid inasmuch as the said deed of partnership specified the shares of the partners in losses. the appellate tribunal, however, found that it was unable to accept the assessee's ..... such shares of profits as has been provided in this instrument with all the rights and liabilities as per section 30 of the indian partnership act. in clause (5) of the deed of partnership it has been recited that the profits and losses of the partnership business shall be divided and borne by the parties in equal proportions after adjustment of all expenses of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1996 (SC)

Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. Vs. G. Parthasarthy Naidu and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-26-1996

Reported in : [1999]236ITR350(SC); (1998)8SCC487

..... another firm or individual as the definition of 'person' in section 3(42) of the general clauses act, 1897, cannot be imported into section 4 of the indian partnership act.(3) the law, english as well as indian, has for some specific purposes, relaxed its rigid notions and extended a limited personality to a firm.(4) under the income-tax law a firm is ..... profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all'. the section declares further that the persons who have entered into ..... , defined a 'partnership' as 'the relation between persons who have agreed to share the ..... assessable in the hands of the partnership firm as a taxable entity separate and distinct from the partners there is first a decision under the law of partnership ; therefore, the second question arises, the question as to assessment under the tax law. it is clear, therefore, that reference must be made first to the partnership law.the indian partnership act, 1932, has, by section 4 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1996 (HC)

Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hassan Chand and Sons

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-22-1996

Reported in : [1997]224ITR244(Raj)

..... and to pay to the guardian of his estate an equal share in the profits of the new firm in accordance with the provisions contained in section 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932. the guardian was not to bear the losses which were to be shared equally by the two remaining partners who were to carry on the business. shri abdul razaq ..... invalid merely because the continuing partners and the guardian of the heirs of the deceased noor mohammed, made efforts to give effect to the provisions of section 37 of the indian partnership act.13. regarding the question as to whether payments made to the guardian of the heirs of the deceased shri noor mohammed were deductible as a charge in arriving at the ..... . he held the view that the guardian of the heirs of the deceased partner constituted the third partner in the firm and, therefore, the provisions of section 37 of the indian partnership act, 1932, did not apply to the case.10. having lost its case before the income-tax officer and the appellate assistant commissioner for both the years, the assessee-firm approached ..... december 31, 1958, no profits were attributable to the use of his share in the properties of the firm so as to attract the provisions of section 57 of the indian partnership act, 1932, to the facts of the present case. the income-tax officer, therefore, held that neither the application was signed by all the partners nor were the profits and losses .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1996 (SC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/S. B. Posetty and Co.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-08-1996

Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)450; 1996VIIIAD(SC)225; AIR1996SC1091; I(1996)BC466(SC); [1996]220ITR216(SC); [1996]223ITR333(SC); JT1996(1)SC153; JT1996(10)SC100; 1996(4)KarLJ221; 1996(1)SCALE

..... a part of the profits of the main abkari business. and if that was not so, and it was merely a financing agreement, the sub-partnership would fail on the touchstone of section 4 of the indian partnership act as then there would be no agreement to share the profits of business. as the profits of the business to be shared by the sub ..... of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.' he submitted that even assuming as this court in degaon ..... partner but the court had not considered the moot question whether such sub-partnership was merely a loan transaction or a financialagreement and if it was merely a financial agreement whether it could ever constitute a partnership within the meaning of section 4 of the indian partnership act, 1932 which reads as under : 'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits ..... ganga reddy (supra) held that this sub-partnership was merely a financing agreement or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamala Devi

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-03-1996

Reported in : [1997]227ITR701(Mad)

..... . v. cit : [1979]120itr49(sc) , the supreme court, while considering the provisions of sections 2(47), 34(3)(b) and 155(5) of the income-tax act, held as under (headnote) : '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 ..... partnership firm, the partners cannot say that they are the owners of the properties held by the firm. even according to the income-tax ..... court, while considering the provisions of sections 45, 54(i) and 114 of the income-tax act, 1961, section 2 of the finance (no. 2) act, 1967, and section. 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932, held (headnote) : 'that for purposes of assessment to tax, the income-tax act treats a registered firm as an entity distinct from the partners. under the specific provisions of the ..... department submitted that there was no dissolution in the present case. one of the assets of the partnership firm was withdrawn by the partners and later on it was sold by them jointly. according to learned standing counsel, as per the provisions of section 14 of the indian partnership act, the partnership firm is the owner of the property. therefore, during the subsistence of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1996 (HC)

income-tax Officer Vs. Dinesh K. Shah and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-12-1996

Reported in : [1997]223ITR68(Mad)

..... officer' only with reference to a local authority or a company or any other public body or any association of persons or any body of individuals. the act adopts the definition of the terms 'firm', 'partner', and 'partnership' as contained in the indian partnership act, 1932. each partner is an agent of the others. consequently, all the partners are jointly and severally liable for the ..... to share the profits as well as the losses of the business ; and (ii) the business must be carried on by all or any of them acting for all, within the meaning of the definition of 'partnership' under section 4 of the indian partnership act. the principle of agency has been held to be implicit in the second requirement.19. section 2(31) of the ..... april, 1971, or on or after that date) as may be specified in the declaration.' 17. section 2(23) of the act defines 'firm'. it runs thus : '2. (23) 'firm', 'partner' and 'partnership' have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932 (9 of 1932) ; but the expression 'partner' shall also include any person who, being a minor, has been admitted ..... day-to-day business of the company or firm or other association.32. sections 4 and 18 of the indian partnership act, 1932, should also be beneficially noticed in this context. section 4 reads as follows : ' 4. definition of 'partnership', 'partner', 'firm' and 'firm name'.--'partnership' is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 21 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhadra Enterprises (No. 1)

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jun-21-1996

Reported in : [1997]228ITR645(Ker)

..... which services may be of a variegated character. in the process the apex court proceeds that when a partnership firm comes into existence, it can be predicated of it that it carries on a business, because partnership according to section 4 of the indian partnership act is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all ..... or any of them acting for all. the court made these observations as a distinguishing feature with regard to the activities ..... to carry on a business.'11. it would be seen that the discussion leading to the conclusion that when there is no business, is against the basic provisions of the partnership act (sic). partnership is essentially a relation of persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them ..... existed during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in question. the essence of the definition of section 4 ofthe partnership act is that a partnership is an agreement to share the profits of a business. if we analyse the requirements of section 4, it is very clear that one of the requirements should be that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1996 (HC)

M/S. Chandrika Enterprise Vs. G. Vittalla Rao

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-17-1996

Reported in : AIR1996Kant214; ILR1996KAR1998; 1996(1)KarLJ461

..... for these reasons, this petition may be dismissed. this respondent has also filed an additional objections contending that the petition is bad for non-compliance of section 69 of the indian partnership act. 4. the case of the respondent in h.r.c. 193/94 has been summarised in para 6 of the impugned order. it reads as follows:--'it is true that ..... under the law for a person to formulate partnerships for the purpose of his business. the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that so far as the petitioner-firm chandrika enterprises is concerned, except the petition schedule property, ..... in the impugned order. the learned trial judge has observed therein that the subsequent conductof the partners of the petitioner-firm in acquiring another property sanman delux by constituting another partnership firm raises doubts upon the case of the petitioner. as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner this reasoning is not correct, inasmuch as there is no prohibition ..... is hereby passed in these two revision pelitions.2. the facts which have led to these revision petitions may briefly be stated as follows: --the petitioner which is a partnership firm represented by its managing directors whichis common in all the five petitions, filed the said eviction petitions praying for eviction of the respondents-tenants in different portions of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1996 (HC)

M/S. Didi Modes Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. Hind Trading and Manufa ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-06-1996

Reported in : AIR1996Delhi319

..... and damages. in the plaint, the case set up by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff firm is a joint hindu family partnership firm registered under the indian partnership act. the appellant company was the defendant in the suit, attorney to the partnership firm by paying license fee. the plaintiff firm had taken a plot b-243, phase i, new industrial area, new delhi from ..... premises forthwith.40. we have considered rival contentions of the parties when the instant case is seen in the perspective of well known norms and parameters as laid down by indian and english decisions, the conclusion becomes irresistible that whatever may be the label, form or nomenclature of the agreement, the courts must look to the substance of the matter ..... payments, street v. mountford 1985 (2) all er 289 : 1985 ac 809, establishes that in such a situation a tenancy is created.' 27. on careful analysis of leading and celebrated indian and english decisions following conclusions are irresistible:'(a) the courts while deciding controversy in cases of lease and/or license must gather the real intention of parties executing the document ..... . the crucial question for consideration in this case is whether the instrument executed between the parties creates a license or a lease. similar question has come up for consideration before indian and english courts in number of cases.11. the division bench of calcutta high court in ram pratap kayan v. the national petroleum co. ltd., : air1950cal23 , hasobserved as under:' .....

Tag this Judgment!


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