Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.22 seconds)Section 45 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Section 12B in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Bankey Lal Vaidya, Aligarh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 5 March, 1964
9. Joshi appearing on behalf of the revenue has argued that there is a known distinction between retirement of a partner from a partnership and the dissolution of a firm and that what had happened in the instant case was that the assessee had merely retired from the partnership firm and the other partners continued the business of the partnership firm which was treated as a reconstituted firm. It was contended that when the firm was said to be reconstituted, that reconstitution of a firm but that that was the legal result of the retirement of certain partners from the partnership firm. Joshi argued that the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bankey Lal Vaidya [1971] 79 ITR 594, which affirmed the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bankey Lal Vaidya v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 55 ITR 400, was not applicable to the case of a retirement of a partner and the ratio of the decision in Bankey Lal Vaidya's case [1971] 79 ITR 594 is attracted only in a case where there is a dissolution of the partnership as such and the assets of the partnership are distributed among all the partners.