Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 26A

Sections 184 to 186 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 years 1951-52 and 1952-53 - Whether where a minor, who was represented by his mother and guardian, was made a full partner of a firm and it was not a case that with consent of other partners such minor was merely admitted to benefits of partnership deed offended section 30 of Indian Partnership Act and, thus, registration to firm was to be refused - Held, yes Section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Hindu undivided family - Assessment after partition - Assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53 - After death of one 'C' his HUF claimed that it was partitioned and placed certain documents sharing agreement of partition - It was found that an ante-dated document was created on a particular date giving an earlier date, as if it had been executed on that date - Whether though it might not have validity from date which appeared ex facie, it might be open to department, taking into account fact of its physical existence, to give effect to it from point of time, when it must have been executed - Held, yes - Whether where so called partition documents were found to be not valid and operative, it could not be held partition was effective - Held, yes FACTS A HUF was consisted of 'C', the father and his four sons. 'C' died in July 1950 and one of the sons at that time was minor. For the assessment year 1951-52, the family had claimed that it had been divided with effect from 15-9-1950, and applied for an order under section 25A. A partnership deed dated 9-11-1950, and a partition yadast (agreement) dated 13-12-1950, were relied upon. Under the latter partition document, the Indian immovable properties were said to have been divided. Having regard to the suspicious features and the rather unsatisfactory evidence placed before the ITO, he reached the conclusion that the claim under section 25A was not well-founded. An application which had been preferred before the Officer under section 26A on behalf of the…

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