Law:

Section:

Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] read with section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Firm - Registration of - Assessment year 1947-48 - Whether registration can only be granted of a document between persons who are parties to it and on covenants set out in it and i t is not open to income-tax authorities to register a document which is different from one actually executed and asked to be registered - Held, yes - Whether any document which goes beyond section 30 of 1932 Act cannot be regarded as valid for purpose of registration under section 26A of 1922 Act - Held, yes - Whether where instrument of partnership described minor as full partner entitled not only to a share in profits but also liable to bear all losses including loss of capital, partnership was not entitled to registration under section 26A of 1922 Act - Held, yes FACTS 'D' entered into a partnership with three others including a minor. To the instrument of partnership the minor was also a signatory and he was described as a full partner entitled not only to a share in the profits but also liable to bear all the losses including loss of capital. It was also provided that all the four partners were to attend to the business, and if consent was needed, all the partners including the minor had to give their consent in writing. The minor was also entitled to manage the affairs of the firm, including inspection of the account books, and was given the right to vote, if a decision on votes had to be taken. The firm so constituted made an application for its registration under section 26A. The ITO refused registration on the ground that a minor had been admitted as a partner contrary to law, and that the deed could not, therefore, be registered. The appeal to the AAC also failed. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that the document must be construed as showing only that the minor was admitted not as a full partner but to the benefits of the partnership. The Tribunal by majority view upheld the refusal of registration. On reference, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and held that the firm was eligible for…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492