Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 478 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Addanki Narayanappa & Anr vs Bhaskara Krishtappa And 13 Ors on 21 January, 1966

Shevantibhai C. Mehta vs Income Tax Officer on 28 August, 2003

No doubt, a different view than that of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel (supra) and Delhi High Court in the case of Bishan Lal Kanodia (supra) was taken by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of L. Raghukumar (supra) while holding that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa which lays down the proposition of law unequivocally applies to the case of retirement of a partner in the context of taxability of the amount received on retirement as a long-term capital gain and there is no distinction between the retirement of a partner and dissolution of a firm even in this context and although the said decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble apex Court in (2001) 247 ITR 801 (SC) (supra), their Lordships have simply relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (supra) which was affirmed by them in (1987) 165 ITR 166 (SC) (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 35 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

P. Ramachandra Reddiar And P. Arjuna ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 November, 1987

44. Notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunil Siddharthbhai's case [1985] 156 ITR 509 restating the principle highlighted in Narayanappa's case, AIR 1966 SC 1300, counsel for the Revenue submitted that, whatever be the position regarding the nature of a partner's interest in the assets of the firm, the fact remains that the assessees who are the partners of the old firm transferred the business of dry-cleaning and tailoring, by name Bright Dry Cleaners, as a running business, to the new firm constituted by the wives of these partners with a view to avoid payment of tax. Dilating on this point, he submitted that the business which was transferred to the spouses must be treated as business carried on by the assessees as they are the only partners of the firm and, under law, the business carried on by a firm is business carried on by its partners.
Kerala High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 2 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bharani Pictures on 16 February, 1979

17. The question whether a document of relinquishment executed by one of the partners in favour of another in a firm which had immovable assets could be looked into as evidence in the absence of its registration was gone into by the Supreme Court in the case of Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, . After referring to the earlier decisions, their Lordships came to the conclusion that the document did not require registration, since the interest of a partner in the firm is only movable property even though the firm has immovable property as part of its assets. In other words, the document of release could not be taken as dealing with any particular immovable property as such.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

M/S Crc Developers And Associates vs Taranjit Singh Suri on 24 March, 2026

In this context, reliance can also be placed upon a judgment of this Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 6 in which this Court has held that irrespective of the character of the property, when it is brought in by the partner when the partnership is formed, it becomes a property of the partnership firm, by virtue of Section 14 of Partnership Act. This Court held as follows: "7. It seems to us that looking to the scheme of the Indian Act no other view can reasonably be taken. The whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose RC ARC No.58/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS TARANJIT SINGH SURI Pg 32 of 60 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Crc Developers And Associates vs Vinod Dewan on 24 March, 2026

In this context, reliance can also be placed upon a judgment of this Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 6 in which this Court has held that irrespective of the character of the property, when it is brought in by the partner when the partnership is formed, it becomes a property of the partnership firm, by virtue of Section 14 of Partnership Act. This Court held as follows:
Delhi District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Crc Developers And Associates vs Ravi Raj Narula on 24 March, 2026

In this context, reliance can also be placed upon a judgment of this Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 6 in which this Court has held that irre- spective of the character of the property, when it is brought in by the partner when the partnership is formed, it becomes a property of the partnership firm, by virtue of Section 14 of Partnership Act. This Court held as follows:
Delhi District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Crc Developers And Associates vs Ravi Raj Narula on 24 March, 2026

In this context, reliance can also be placed upon a judgment of this Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 6 in which this Court has held that irre- spective of the character of the property, when it is brought in by the partner when the partnership is formed, it becomes a property of the partnership firm, by virtue of Section 14 of Partnership Act. This Court held as follows:
Delhi District Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Crc Developers And Associates vs Ranjana Banga on 24 March, 2026

In this context, reliance can also be placed upon a judgment of this Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 6 in which this Court has held that irre- spective of the character of the property, when it is brought in by the partner when the partnership is formed, it becomes a property of the partnership firm, by virtue of Section 14 of Partnership Act. This Court held as follows:
Delhi District Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms Crc Developers And Associates vs Jagmohan Singh on 24 March, 2026

In this context, reliance can also be placed upon a judgment of this Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 6 in which this Court has held that irrespective of the character of the property, when it is brought in by the partner when the partnership is formed, it becomes a property of the partnership firm, by virtue of Section 14 of Partnership Act. This Court held as follows: "7. It seems to us that looking to the scheme of the Indian Act no other view can reasonably be taken. The whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable property. Once that is done whatever is brought in would cease to be the trading asset of the person who brought it in. It would be the trading asset of the partnership in which all the partners would have interest in proportion to their share in the joint venture of the business of partnership. The person who brought it in would, therefore, not be able to claim or exercise any exclusive right over any property which he has brought in, much less over any other partnership property. He would not be able to exercise his right RC ARC No.64/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAGMOHAN SINGH Pg 31 of 58 Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Crc Developers And Associates vs Gaurav Narula on 24 March, 2026

In this context, reliance can also be placed upon a judgment of this Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 6 in which this Court has held that irrespective of the character of the property, when it is brought in by the partner when the partnership is formed, it becomes a property of the partnership firm, by virtue of Section 14 of Partnership Act. This Court held as follows: "7. It seems to us that looking to the scheme of the Indian Act no other view can reasonably be taken. The whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable property. Once that is done whatever is brought in would cease to be the trading asset of the person who brought it in. It would be the trading asset of the partnership in which all the partners would have interest in proportion to their share in the joint venture of the business of partnership. The person who brought it in would, therefore, not be able to claim or exercise any exclusive right over any property which he has brought in, much less over any other partnership property. He would not be able to exercise his right even to the extent of his share in the business of the partnership.
Delhi District Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next