Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 2393 1989 SLD 2393 (1989) 177 ITR 498
Punjab and Haryana High Court

GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Income Tax

v.

Jain Steel Rolling Mills

Law:

Section:

Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Firm - Registration - Validity of partnership - Assessment year 1973-74 - A partnership deed was drawn on 20-7-1972 but was brought into effect from 1-6-1972 - Whether even though one of partners attained majority on 13-6-1972, i.e., prior to execution of partnership deed but after date of making partnership deed effective, partnership was valid and, consequently, assessee-firm was entitled to registration - Held, yes Facts A partnership deed was drawn on 20-7-1972, but was brought into effect from 1-6-1972. The assessee-firm filed an application for registration of the partnership under section 185. The ITO found that one of the partners had attained majority on 13-6-1972 and since partnership was made effective from 1-6-1972. when he was minor, he refused to grant registration. On second appeal, the Tribunal allowed registration on the reasoning that a partnership deed could be given retrospective operation as between the parties to serve a limited purpose for dating the accounts of profits and loss. On reference : Held The case was fully covered by the decision in the case of Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co. v. CIT [7957] 166 ITR 143. In the instant case, the minor had attained majority during the accounting year and, therefore, could contract to share the profit and loss, even for small period of 13 days during which he was minor. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to registration. Cases referred to Addl. CIT v. Uttam Kumar Pramod Kumar [1978] 115 ITR 796 (All.) (FB), Jagadhri Electric Supply & Industrial Co. v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 148 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. P.M. Syed Mohammed Kannu & Co. [1984] 149 ITR 441 (Ker.), Modern Stores v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 589 (AP), CIT v. Associate Industrial Distributors [1982] 138 ITR 304 (Cal.) and Srinivasa Stainless Steel & Moulding Works v.CIT [1987] 167 ITR 1 (AP). Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Applicant. B.S. Gupta and Sanjay Bansal for the Respondent. ORDER Mital, J. - The Tribunal, Chandigarh, has referred the following question for opinion of this Court for the assessment year 1973-74 : "Whether the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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