TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a partnership formed for carrying on abkari contract business on the strength of a licence standing in the name of one partner was valid and not hit by the prohibition against transfer of the licence or privilege. (ii) Whether such a firm was entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether a partnership formed for carrying on abkari contract business on the strength of a licence standing in the name of one partner was valid and not hit by the prohibition against transfer of the licence or privilege.
Analysis: The partnership deed and the manner of carrying on the abkari business brought the arrangement within the bar against unlawful agreements. The licence was treated as belonging exclusively to the licensee, and the formation of the partnership could not confer rights in the licence on the other partners. The arrangement was therefore considered contrary to the governing legal framework and void.
Conclusion: The partnership was not valid for the purpose of carrying on the abkari contract business.
Issue (ii): Whether such a firm was entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: Since the partnership itself was treated as void and not capable of recognition as a genuine firm, it could not satisfy the requirements for registration under the Income-tax law. The binding precedent followed by the Court required refusal of registration in such circumstances.
Conclusion: The firm was not entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Final Conclusion: The questions referred were answered against the assessee, and the legal effect of the decision was to sustain refusal of registration to the partnership firm.
Ratio Decidendi: A partnership formed to conduct abkari business on a licence standing in the name of one partner, where the arrangement amounts to an unlawful transfer or sharing of the licensed privilege, is void and cannot be recognised as a genuine firm for income-tax registration.
TaxTMI 
