Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Mahabir Cold Storage vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna on 7 December, 1990
In the case of Mahabir Cold Storage v. CIT , it has been observed by the Supreme Court that under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a partnership firm registered thereunder is neither a person nor a legal entity. It is merely a collective name for the individual members of the partnership firm. A firm as such cannot be a partner in another firm though its partners may be partners in the other firm in their individual capacity.
M/S. Meera Company,Ludhiana vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Punjab, ... on 11 March, 1997
13. The decision cited by Mr. Som rendered by the Supreme Court in Meera and Co. v. CIT is factually distinguishable because in that case after the death of the sole proprietor of a business, the entire business devolved upon the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased proprietor, namely, the widow and minor children. In that case, it was held by the Supreme Court that the mother and the minor children are a body of individuals. So, the profit was taxable in the business of the said firm holding that the aforesaid persons are a body of individuals. As I have already held and observed that the said joint venture does not constitute a body of individuals, this judgment is of no assistance.
Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Bombay vs Smt. Indira Balkrishna on 14 April, 1960
14. Similarly, another decision cited by Mr. Som reported in CIT v. Indira Balkrishna [1960] 39 ITR 548 (SC) is not applicable in this case and the said case was factually distinguishable. In that case also the individual, persons, namely, human beings constituted body of individuals and/or an association of persons.
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Behari Lal Chatterji vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. on 27 October, 1933
5. Mr. Pal argues that this identical point involved in this application was decided by Justice Ms. Pal (as her Lordship then was) on February 8, 1991, in matter being No. 2780 of 1990 (Gouranya Lal Chatterjee v. ITO). He argues that in the aforesaid judgment it has been held amongst other that returns of the income from the joint venture in the hands of the petitioner firms, could not be asked for, as that would amount to double taxation.
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1