TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Partnership firm loses appeal over registration cancellation under Gold (Control) Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Koonans Jewellery</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Koonans Jewellery - [1997] 226 ITR 588, 143 CTR 112, 98 TAXMANN 21 Issues:1. Interpretation of the definition of 'dealer' under the Gold (Control) Act.2. Entitlement to registration under the Act.Interpretation of the definition of 'dealer' under the Gold (Control) Act:The case involved a partnership firm engaged in jewellery business whose registration was cancelled as the licence was in the name of one partner, not the firm. The Tribunal upheld the firm's appeal, citing a precedent. Both parties referred to a Full Bench decision in Narayanan and Co. v. CIT. The Gold (Control) Act prohibits business without a valid licence. The Act defines a 'dealer' as one engaged in gold-related activities. The firm, not having a licence, violated the Act by conducting business. Rule 7 prohibits transfer of licences, meaning a partner cannot use their licence for the firm's benefit. A prior case established that using a partner's licence for the firm is a violation. Applying this, the Court ruled against the firm on the issue.Entitlement to registration under the Act:The Court ruled against the firm on the issue of registration entitlement due to the violation of the Gold (Control) Act. As the registration issue was linked to the Act's violation, the Court declined to answer the related question. The judgment was to be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench for further action.
TaxTMI 