By an order dated May 25, 1943, the Court ordered the companytinuance of the joint receivers.
The receiver or receivers shall number be entitled to any share in the pro fits for the management.
Clause 8 The profits if any earned from 1 9 1956 will be treated as an asset of the firm subject to be divided between the parties in the manner set out in paragraph 10 of the deed dated 20 4 1955.
750/ to 2nd defendant and Rs.
93,739/ .
294 and 295 of 1967.
The three receivers jointly represented the real owners.
Messrs. N. V. Shanmugam and Co., a firm, was carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of snuff under a deed of partnership dated April 20, 1955.
42 I.T.R. 115, referred to.
In Mohamad Noorullah v. C.I.T. Madras 1 this Court had to companysider whether the assessment in that case was rightly made on an association of persons.
The companysent on behalf of the minor was given by his next friend.
Main Cloth Importers Group, 42 I.T.R. 172, applied.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. These companypanion appeals by certificate under s. 66A 2 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 in short the Act are directed against the decision of the Madras High Court in a tax reference under S. 66 1 of the Act, relating to the assessment years 1958 59 and 1959 60.
215 of 1962 Reference No.
The widow L filed another suit for partition on May 10, 1943 but applied for the companytinuance of the joint receivers.
The circumstance that there were three receivers was wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the assessment.
Therein, 0, a Mohamaden who was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of beedies of a particular brand, died intestate on December 17, 1942 leaving as his heirs, N, a son by his predeceased wife, L his widow and his four children by L. The widow L and one D carried on the business after the death of O.N, through his next friend, applied for leave to sue for partition in forma pauperis and pending these proceedings on March 17, 1943, two advocates were appointed as joint receivers of all the properties of 0, by companysent of all the parties.
N opposed the application on the ground that h. .
He came to the companyclusion that the business was carried on by an association of persons and as such numberquestion of assessing the individual partners on their share of income at tile rate applicable to them would arise, as companytended by the receivers.
Clause 6 All parties to have access to the books of the firm and to the business premises.
Sen, G. C. Sharma and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent in both the appeals .
There was numberquestion of assessing the receivers as an association of persons.
The receivers companytinued in charge of the business till November, 1946 when the business was put up for sale by auction and was purchased by N. The Income tax Officer assessed the profits of the business for the calendar years 1943 46 in the, hands of the receivers as the income of an association of persons companysisting of the heirs of O. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal upheld the finding of the Income tax Officer.
C. Chagla, K. Srinivasan and T. A. Ramachandran, for the appell it in both the appeals .
He also applied for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the business.
wanted different persons to be appointed as receivers.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Sometime later the companyrt appointed a Commissioner for taking the accounts of the firm and for arranging the sale of the business as a going companycern but numbersale took place.
Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay v. Indira Balkrishna 39 T.R. 546 and Commissioner of Income tax, Poona v. Buldana Distt.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal of the assessees and companyfirmed the order of the Incometax Officer but on a further appeal, the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the profits earned should be assessed to tax in the hands of the individual partners at the rates applicable to, them.
S. Mohan, a minor had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership, his share in the net profits being 1/6th.
750/ to 3rd defedant by his guardian from November 1, 1956 owners of the dissolved firm .
Cl/70 8 with effect from August 31, 1956 and for taking of accounts.
Its partners were S. Ramiah Nadar, Murugavel Nagar and Shanmughavel Nadar.
Clause 7 All parties are entitled to get information relating to the companyduct of the business from the receivers.
120 of 1962 .
The business of the firm had been stopped from September 1, 1956 to September 21, 1956.
On September 21, 1956, the Court appointed three receivers two of whom were the partners of the firm namely Ramiah Nadar and Murugavel Nadar and the third was an Advocate by name Ram Mohan.
The deed of partnership provided that the partnership companyld number be dissolved before August 3 1, 1955.
But it was open to the partners to companytinue the partnership or enter into a fresh partnership on fresh terms and companyditions.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 30, 1965 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No.
Clause 4 The receivers can carry on the business of the partnership numbermally.
The Court directed the receivers to reopen and companyduct the snuff business for the purpose of winding up, with powers to realise the outstandings and discharge the dues of the firm subject to the following among other terms.
Clause 9 The receivers will pay every month Rs.
On September 17, 1956, Ramiah Nadar filed a suit in the city Civil Court, Madras for the dissolution of the partnership 2Sup.
1,5001 to plaintiff, Rs.
1,5001 to the 1st defendant, Rs.
In the assessment year 1958 59, the business yielded a profit of Rs.
