Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)
M/S Progressive Financers, Madras vs The Additional Commissioner Of Income ... on 20 February, 1997
cites
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs Shah Mohandas Sadhuram on 15 April, 1965
Construing the partnership deed in the light of the
decisions of this court in Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Mysore vs. Shah Mohandas Sadhuram 57 ITR 415 and
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore vs. Shah Jethaji
Phulchand 57 ITR 588 and the decision of the Andhra pradesh
high Court in Addepally Nageswara Rao (supra) the Tribunal
held that minor Sunitha was admitted merely to the benefits
to partnership and it was not correct to say that she was
made a full-fledged partner. The Tribunal also held that the
minor was not to be burdened with losses and they were to be
borne by the other partners. It further held that though the
instrument of partnership did not specifically provide how
the losses were to be borne by the partners the rule that in
such cases losses are to be shared in the same proportion as
profits became applicable and since the partnership deed was
capable of being construed in that manner, the firm was
entitled to registration. It, therefore, dismissed the
appeal.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore vs Shah Jethaji Phulchand on 25 April, 1965
Construing the partnership deed in the light of the
decisions of this court in Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Mysore vs. Shah Mohandas Sadhuram 57 ITR 415 and
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore vs. Shah Jethaji
Phulchand 57 ITR 588 and the decision of the Andhra pradesh
high Court in Addepally Nageswara Rao (supra) the Tribunal
held that minor Sunitha was admitted merely to the benefits
to partnership and it was not correct to say that she was
made a full-fledged partner. The Tribunal also held that the
minor was not to be burdened with losses and they were to be
borne by the other partners. It further held that though the
instrument of partnership did not specifically provide how
the losses were to be borne by the partners the rule that in
such cases losses are to be shared in the same proportion as
profits became applicable and since the partnership deed was
capable of being construed in that manner, the firm was
entitled to registration. It, therefore, dismissed the
appeal.
Thacker & Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 16 September, 1965
The High Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat
High Court in Thacker & Co. vs. CIT 61 ITR 540 and two
decisions of the Kerala High Court in C.I.T. vs. Ithappiri &
George 88 ITR 332 and United Hardwares vs. C.I.T. 96 ITR 348
wherein it has been held that in view of the clear language
of Section 184 it is necessary that sharing of the losses
also has to be specifically provided in the partnership deed
and there is no scope for applying any principle or rule of
law for discerning the proportion in which the losses are to
be shared.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ithappiri & George on 17 November, 1971
The High Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat
High Court in Thacker & Co. vs. CIT 61 ITR 540 and two
decisions of the Kerala High Court in C.I.T. vs. Ithappiri &
George 88 ITR 332 and United Hardwares vs. C.I.T. 96 ITR 348
wherein it has been held that in view of the clear language
of Section 184 it is necessary that sharing of the losses
also has to be specifically provided in the partnership deed
and there is no scope for applying any principle or rule of
law for discerning the proportion in which the losses are to
be shared.
United Hardwares vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 August, 1973
The High Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat
High Court in Thacker & Co. vs. CIT 61 ITR 540 and two
decisions of the Kerala High Court in C.I.T. vs. Ithappiri &
George 88 ITR 332 and United Hardwares vs. C.I.T. 96 ITR 348
wherein it has been held that in view of the clear language
of Section 184 it is necessary that sharing of the losses
also has to be specifically provided in the partnership deed
and there is no scope for applying any principle or rule of
law for discerning the proportion in which the losses are to
be shared.
Mandyala Govindu & Co vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Andhra ... on 6 October, 1975
If the partnership deed is construed reasonably, as
indicated above, then it has to be held that it did, by
necessary implication, provide for the proportion in which
the losses of the firm were to be shared by the major
partners. The application for registration made by the
appellant fulfilled the conditions laid down by Section 184
of the Act and, therefore, the ITO ought to have granted
registration and made assessment of the appellant for the
relevant years on that basis. The High Court was wrong in
taking the contrary view. Therefore, we allow these appeals,
set aside the judgment and orders passed by the High Court
and answer the question referred to the High Court by
holding that for the assessment year 1968-69 the appellant
was entitled to registration and for the assessment years
1969-70 and 1970-71 it was entitled to renewal/continuation
of registration. In view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Kerala Publicity Bureau vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 January, 1993
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the view taken by the High Court is wrong. The two decisions
of the Kerala High Court which are relied upon by the High
Court have since been overruled by the Full Bench of the
Kerala High Court in Kerala Publicity Bureau vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax 200 ITR 366. he also submitted
that the instrument of partnership, if reasonable construed,
did indicate the method by which profits and losses were to
be shared by the partners. On the other hand, it was
contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that as
Section 184 of the Act confers a benefit which would
otherwise laid down therein are strictly complied with.
Therefore, the said benefit can be claimed only if in the
instrument of partnership itself shares of the partners in
profits and losses are specifically stated.
Ravula Subba Rao And Another vs The Commissioner Of ... on 9 May, 1956
This Court in Rao Bahadur Ravulu Subba Rao vs. CIT 30
ITR 163 and Patel (N.T.)
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
and Co. vs. CIT 42 ITR 224,
interpreting Section 26-A of the earlier 1922 Act, held that
registration under that Section conferred a benefit on the
partners which the partners were not entitled to but for
that Section and, therefore, that right could have been
claimed any in accordance with the statute and those who
claimed it had to bring their case strictly within the terms
of that Section.