Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Imperial Automobiles vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 June, 1972

M/S.Midland Theatres vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 September, 2011

24. Given the fact that the assessee could not explain the whereabouts of the original deed or placing the same before the Assessing Officer when he demanded it and that there was no explanation as regards the deed dated 23.04.1985, written on a stamp paper dated 24.07.1985, in the absence of any material to show the constitution of a partnership under deed dated 1.4.1984, the formalities as regards the registration under Section 184 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not being complied with and the existing document dated 01.04.1984 itself not being proved, the Tribunal held that an inference as regards the existence of the firm could not be drawn. While so holding, the Tribunal applied the decision reported in [1973] 87 ITR 695 (Imperial Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) and held that the Assessing Officer was correct in rejecting the claim of the assessee to treat it as a firm and the Assessing Officer rightly treated the same as Association of Persons for the year 1984-85 and 1985-86.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Ito, New Delhi vs M/S Antheia Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,, ... on 13 September, 2024

e. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Imperial Automobiles vs. CIT (87 ITR 695) wherein the deed was purportedly executed on 1st of October, 1961 on a stamp paper dated 20.10.1961, the Assessing Officer held the partnership as void-ab-initio, the Court held that; "The question is whether the above view taken by the Tribunal is legally acceptable. It may be that the difference in dates may lead to a suspicion that there was no genuine partnership and that the parties wanted to make it appear that by this document there has beena genuine partnership while there was none. Inconsistency in the dates may be relevant for the purposes of finding out the genuineness or otherwise of the partnership. But, if the partnership is genuine and the inconsistency in the dates is due to a mistake as contended by the assessee, the document itself cannot be said to be invalid for that reason. It may be that though the document is 10 ITA No.2373/DEL/2017 ITA No.4963/DEL/2017 purported to have been written on October 1, 1961, when it will become effective only from October 20, 1961 when it was executed by the parties after the document has been written on the stamp papers. The Tribunal, therefore, is not right in holding that the document itself is in valid for the reason that the date of the document precedes the purchase of the stamp papers. As already stated this question may be relevant for finding out the genuineness or otherwise of the partnership and this question has not been touched by the Tribunal on the view that the document itself is invalid. The Tribunal also did not consider that the rectification deed dated January19, 1965, could cure the defect in the document dated October 1, 1961. In our view, the Tribunal should have gone into the question as to whether the partnership was genuine and whether the partnership deed produced evidenced such a genuine partnership. Its disposal of the appeal on the ground that the partnership deed as such is invalid cannot be accepted."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito, Ward-2(4), New Delhi vs Antheia Constructions P.Ltd, New Delhi on 13 September, 2024

e. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Imperial Automobiles vs. CIT (87 ITR 695) wherein the deed was purportedly executed on 1st of October, 1961 on a stamp paper dated 20.10.1961, the Assessing Officer held the partnership as void-ab-initio, the Court held that; "The question is whether the above view taken by the Tribunal is legally acceptable. It may be that the difference in dates may lead to a suspicion that there was no genuine partnership and that the parties wanted to make it appear that by this document there has beena genuine partnership while there was none. Inconsistency in the dates may be relevant for the purposes of finding out the genuineness or otherwise of the partnership. But, if the partnership is genuine and the inconsistency in the dates is due to a mistake as contended by the assessee, the document itself cannot be said to be invalid for that reason. It may be that though the document is 10 ITA No.2373/DEL/2017 ITA No.4963/DEL/2017 purported to have been written on October 1, 1961, when it will become effective only from October 20, 1961 when it was executed by the parties after the document has been written on the stamp papers. The Tribunal, therefore, is not right in holding that the document itself is in valid for the reason that the date of the document precedes the purchase of the stamp papers. As already stated this question may be relevant for finding out the genuineness or otherwise of the partnership and this question has not been touched by the Tribunal on the view that the document itself is invalid. The Tribunal also did not consider that the rectification deed dated January19, 1965, could cure the defect in the document dated October 1, 1961. In our view, the Tribunal should have gone into the question as to whether the partnership was genuine and whether the partnership deed produced evidenced such a genuine partnership. Its disposal of the appeal on the ground that the partnership deed as such is invalid cannot be accepted."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Ram Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 February, 1974

10. Mr. K.N. Jain, learned counsel for the assessee, placed reliance upon a recent decision of a Bench of the Madras High Court in Imperial Automobiles v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1973] 87 I.T.R. 695 (Mad.).. Facts were very much similar, and the Madras High Court took the view that the registration could not be refused merely because of the difference in the date of execution as recited and the date of actual execution. The learned judges constituting the Bench, however, thought that this could lead to a suspicion about the genuineness of the partnership, and since the Tribunal had not recorded any finding in that regard a further statement of the case was called for. The difference between the facts of the case before the Madras High Court and the instant one, to my mind, is so obvious that taking recourse to the calling for a further statement of the case by us was neither necessary nor would have been justified.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dwarka Prasad Chiranjilal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 27 July, 1977

8. Relying upon a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Imperial Automobiles v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 695, it was held that the registration could not be refused merely because of the difference in the date of execution as recited and the date of actual execution. The order of the Tribunal accordingly was held to be illegal. Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia, learned standing counsel for the revenue, urged that the case of Sri Ram Mills [1974] 95 ITR 279 (Pat) is distinguishable inasmuch as in that case the actual execution of the deed was borne out by the date put under the signature of the partners which showed that the actual execution had taken place on the 18th March, 1960. It was urged that in the instant case even the signature that is appended to the partnership deed purports to bear the same date, namely, 1st January, 1968. In our view, this distinction on facts is of no consequence in so far as the legal position is concerned, because the document was obviously executed in the course of the accounting year in question and if that be so there is no warrant for the proposition that although the document was actually executed before the end of the accounting year and although the recital went to show that the partnership had actually come into existence with effect from the 1st January, 1968, the document should still be held to be invalid on any score under the provisions of Sections 184 and 185 of the Act. Learned standing counsel thereafter vehemently relied on the Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Malankara Timbers [1967] 66 ITR 200 (Ker), which is the sheet-anchor of the decision of the Commissioner (respondent No. 1). That case was also considered by this court in the case of Sri Ram Mills [1974] 95 ITR 279 (Pat) and, to say the least, a doubt was expressed with regard to the correctness of the ratio decidendi of the case.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1