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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a firm is entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, when the whole of its divisible profits are not divided among the partners.
Analysis: Registration under section 26A depended upon compliance with the prescribed rules framed under section 59. The scheme of the Act and the rules required that the profits of the relevant accounting year be divided or credited in accordance with the partnership deed and the prescribed form. Where the partnership deed itself contemplated division of all profits and a portion of the divisible profits was carried forward instead of being distributed according to the instrument, an essential requirement for registration was not satisfied. The cited authorities on reserve funds or different factual settings did not govern the present case, since the issue here was non-division of part of the divisible profits in breach of the statutory and contractual scheme.
Conclusion: The firm was not entitled to registration unless the divisible profits were wholly divided in accordance with the partnership instrument and the rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Entitlement to registration of a firm under section 26A requires strict compliance with the prescribed statutory rules and the partnership deed, including full division or crediting of the divisible profits of the relevant year; any unallocated part of such profits defeats registration.