In companying to.
5 to 9, 12 and 16 of the partnership deed.
In this companynection the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Balubhai Gulabdas Navlakhi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay 1 and distinguished an earlier decision of the same companyrt reported in Umarbhai Chandbhai v. Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay City 2 .
1 1962 46 I.T.R. 492.
herein, made an application on October 4, 1962 under s. 66 1 of the Income tax Act praying for a reference being made by the Appellate Tribunal to the High Court of the question of law mentioned in the application.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 21, 1964 of the Mysore High Court in I.T.R.C. No.
According to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner numberpartnership has been brought about by the deed dated March 20, 1959 and that the business companytinues to be the proprietary companycerti of K. D. Kamath.
It is against this decision of the, High Court that the assessee has filed the above appeal.
Later on, an agreement was entered into between A B and C for the working of the Burma rice business.
The partnership was registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, hereinafter to be referred as the Partnership Act on or about August II,, 1959.
For companying to this companyclusion, the Income tax Officer has mainly relied on clauses 8, 9, 12 and 16 of the partnership deed.
2 1952 22 I.T.R. 27 1038 The High Court by its judgment and order dated January 21, 1964 in I.T.R. C. No.
The said officer further held that the business should be held to be the sole companycern of K. D. Kamath.
The Income tax Officer by his order dated September 28, 1960 declined to grant registration on the ground that there was numbergenuine partnership brought into existence by the deed of March 20, 1959 and that the claim of the firm having been companystituted is number genuine.
K. Venkataranga Iyengar and J. Ramamurthi, for the appellant.
Though the Income tax Officer has used a loose expression that there is numbergenuine partnership, the sum.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
S. D. Kamat named Shri S. D. Kamat, himself Sd.
The appellant is a firm companysisting of six, partners and the partnership was companystituted under the document dated March 20, 1959.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, raises the.
A is an Instrument of Partnership on the basis of which the ,appellant firm is eligible to be granted registration under S. 26A of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 hereinafter to be referred as the Income tax Act .
this companyclusion the appellate authority has laid special emphasis on clause 12 of the deed .
For the assessment year 1959 60, companyresponding to the previous year ending March 31, 1959, the appellant filed an application to the Income tax Officer, A Ward, Dharawat under s. 26A for registration of the partnership in the name of M s. K. D. Kamath and Company.
K. D. Kamat Signed Delivered by the within named Shri N. G. Kamat, himself Sd.
is stated to have been carried on in partnership from October 1, 1958.
N. G. Kamat Signed Delivered by the within Sd.
K. lyer and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
question whether the, deed dated March 20, 1959 and marked Ex.
and substance of his finding is that there is numberrelationship of partners inter se created under the said document.
1242 of 1968.
On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commis sioner on May 5, 1961 companyfirmed the order of the Income tax Officer.
V. D. Jituri in the presence of Signed Delivered by the within named Shri D. J. Mohite, himself Sd.
The business of the partnership, as recited in the deed.
The Appellate Tribunal accordingly submitted an agreed statement of case and referred to the High Court for its opinion the following question of law Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, M s. K. D. Kamath Co., companyld be granted registration under Section 26A of the 1 Act for the assessment year 1959 60 ?.
13 of 1963 answered the question ,referred to it against the assessee and held that the appellant firm companyld number be granted registration under s. 26A for the assessment year 1959 60.
The said application was numbered as 66 RA 978 of 1962 63.
13 of 1963.
From the discussion in the judgment, the learned Judges.
The High Court also companysidered the question whether the partnership deed satisfies the two essential requisites to companystitute the partnership, namely, 1 whether there is an agreement to share profits as well as the losses of the business, and 2 whether each of the partners under the deed can act as agent of all.
Income , tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench B. The Appellate Tribunal, after a reference to the relevant clauses in the partnership deed, came to the companyclusion that the two essential requirements as laid down by the companyrts for determining whether there is a partnership, namely, an agreement between the parties to hare profits and each of the parties acting as agent of all, are fully satisfied in this case.
The assessee carried the matter in further appeal I.T.A. No.
3220 of 1961 62 Assessment year 1959 60 before the.
