Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.16 seconds)
Jitendra And Co. vs Third Income-Tax Officer on 10 September, 1981 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Gokaldas Hukumchand. on 6 April, 1943

In CIT v. Gokaldas Hukumchand [1943] 11 ITR 462 (Bom.), the assessee and his minor son were partners in a firm. Subsequently a second firm was started in which the assessee was not a partner but his two minor sons were partners along with others. The firm was registered under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. But the income of the minor sons received from the second firm was treated by the department as the income of the assessee. The department relied upon some other circumstances to show that actually the minor sons were nominees of their father. It was held by the Bombay High Court that the facts relied upon by the department did not afford any evidence on which they could properly come to the conclusion either that the assessee was a partner in the second firm or that the minor sons of the assessee were mere nominees of their father.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Krishna Flour Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 1 November, 1960

In Krishna Flour Mills v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 581 (SC) a person entered into a partnership with his wife and brother-in-law. There was evidence to show that the wife and the brother-in-law had contributed their own shares in the capital. It was not suggested that there were no good reasons for taking the wife and the brother-in-law as partners and the books of account were not shown to be false. The Tribunal took the view that the partnership consisting of the wife and the brother-in-law must be necessarily suspect and held that the firm was not genuine. It was held by the Supreme Court that on the materials on record the inference of the Tribunal was unreasonable and not justified either by partnership law or common human experience.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 19 - S K Das - Full Document

United Patel Construction. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nagpur. on 30 April, 1965

In United Patel Construction Co. v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 424 (MP), it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that a partnership may comprise some member known as a dormant or sleeping partner, who is not generally interested in the conduct of the business and who could not be expected to be aware of the details of the partnership business, but it cannot be reasonably inferred from his ignorance about the details that the partnership was not genuine and that the fact that one of the partners had not withdrawn his share of the profits and allowed them to accumulate is also no ground for inferring that the partnership was not genuine. The position has been summarised thus at pages 1016 and 1017 of Kanga and Palkhivala's Law and Practice of Income-tax, 7th edition, Vol. 1.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Murlidhar Kishangopal (Firm) vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 September, 1962

The mere fact that a former employee or a relative is taken up as a partner, or that he does not bring in any capital, or that a partner occupies a dominant position and is in control of the business, or that a sleeping partner is ignorant about the details of the partnership and has not withdrawn his share of profits, or that no notice of partnership is given to the constituents of the business or to the bank, or that the firm is not registered under the Partnership Act, or that no separate capital account is opened, or that the partners who are former members of the disrupted Hindu family continue to live and mess together- Murlidhar Kishangopal v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 628-would not constitute evidence for a finding that the partnership is not genuine. If the partnership is genuine and actually exists in the terms specified in the deed, the fact that it was formed with a view to diminishing the incidence of taxation, or that there is a wrong recital in the partnership deed regarding the date of its execution or the reason for forming the partnership or the business carried on by it, or that all the businesses carried on are not mentioned in the deed, or that a partner may have brought the capital from his joint family or from another firm in which he is a partner is irrelevant and would not justify a refusal to register the firm.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1