For the assessment year 1953 54,the partners again applied for renewal of registration on thebasis of the same deed, but the Income tax Officer was of theopinion that there was numberclause in the deed specifying theindividual shares of each partner as required by s. 26A of the Act.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 14/15, 1961 of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No.
After meeting all expenses, interest and other charges,the resulting net profit or loss shall be ascertained and shall be divided amongst all partners.
29,0571/. On the basis of the same deed, an application was made for the renewal of registration of the firm for the assessment year 1952 53.
After issuing numberices to the three partners and after giving them a hearing, the Income tax Officer, by his order dated March 28, 1958, rejected the application of the partners for renewal of re gistration of the firm.
Along with this application, the deed of partnership dated March 19, 1950 was produced.
By his order dated March 20, 1956 the Income tax Officer granted registration under s. 26A of the Act for the assessment year 1951 52.
Arvind P. Patwe, O. C. Mathur, for the appellant.
At the instance of the assessee the appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law for the determination of the High Court under s. 66 1 of the Act Whether on a proper companystruction of the partnership deed dated 19 3 1950, the firm sought to be registered for the assessment year 1953 54, can be said to have been companystituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners as required by section 26A of the Act By its judgment dated March 15, 1961, the High Court answered the question in the negative, holding that renewal of registration under s. 26A of the Act was rightly refused by the Income tax authorities.
The assessee is a partnership firm companystituted under a Deed of Partnership dated March 19, 1950.
The partners are three brothers Nandlal Bhimjibhai,Tarachand Bhimjibhai andRajnikant Bhimjibhai, each one having an equal 1/3rd sharein he partnership firm.
For the purpose of this case, it is number necessary to reproduce all the terms of the partnership deed.
This document recites that the three brothers have agreed to companytinue the business of the two branches at Nagpur in partnership on the terms mentioned in that document.
56 of 1960.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
56 of 1960.
In the assessment year 1951 52, the three partners applied to the Income tax Officer for registration of the firm under the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 hereinafter called the Act .
On the same day, he determined the total income of the firm at Rs.
T. Desai, A. N. Kirpal and R. N. Sachthey, for the res pondent.
The larger partnership of Rajnikant Vitheldas Co. was dissolved on October 31, 1949 and on its dissolution the business of the two branches thereof at Nagpur was allotted to the three brothers, who thereupon as from November 1, 1949 companystituted themselves into a new firm, viz.,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, on behalf of the assessee from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated March 15, 1961 in Income Tax Reference No.
The renewal was granted on March 28, 1957.
Prior to November, 1949, the threepartners of the assessee firm in partnership with eight others carried on business in Bombay and other places in the name and style of Rajnikant Vitheldas Co. In that larger firm, each one of the three brothers had an equal two annas share each, the other eight partners having the remaining ten anna share.
1058 of 1965.
the assessee firm under the deed of partnership executed on March 19, 1950.
