Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)Section 185 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
United Patel Construction. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nagpur. on 30 April, 1965
15. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on record. In my opinion, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly reversed the finding of the assessing officer for the detailed reasons given by him in his impugned order. Registration has been cancelled mainly on the ground that the two lady partners during the course of their statements recorded during thecourse of search have not shown sufficient acquaintance of the affairs of the firm. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the firm was constituted by a valid partnership deed. The two ladies had contributed capital and they were not working partners. The working partner was Shri Narendra Singh Bindra who was validly acting on his behalf as well as on behalf of the two ladies. A partnership could not necessarily become nongenuine only because one or more partners were not aware of the details about the partnership business as held in the case of United Patel Construction Co. v. CIT (supra).
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Subhash Medical Stores vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 February, 1984
A similar view has been held in the case of Subhash Medical Stores v. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 486 (Raj).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I vs Mafatlal Chandulal & Co. Ltd And Anr. on 28 June, 1976
(ii) CIT v. Chandra & Co. 1976 CTR (All) 135
V. K. Kurien & K. P. George vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala. on 12 March, 1966
(i) V.K. Kurian & KP. George v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 675 (Ker)
Section 4 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Ozhukal Ouseph vs Deputy Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 29 September, 1977
(iii) Ozhukal Ouseph v. Dy. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 894 (Ker)
1