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>Partners Cannot Gift Firm Property to Wives; Tax Assessed on Rental Income</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus T. Omer And Company</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus T. Omer And Company - [1992] 196 ITR 736, 102 CTR 36, 64 TAXMANN 190 Issues:1. Whether partners of a firm can gift the property of the firm to their wives during the subsistence of the partnershipRs.2. Whether the firm can be assessed to tax on rental income from property at Madras from July 1982Rs.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Orissa involved the interpretation of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the ability of partners in a firm to gift the property of the firm to their wives during the existence of the partnership. The case revolved around a partnership firm, where each partner had gifted a portion of a property owned by the firm to their respective wives. The Assessing Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that partners could not gift the property belonging to the partnership during its subsistence. They argued that the property was an asset of the firm and could not be gifted individually. However, the Tribunal overturned this decision, stating that the firm is not a legal entity and partners collectively own the property. The Tribunal allowed the gifts made by the partners to their wives and held that the rental income from the property should only be included for the period before the gifts were made.The High Court analyzed the legal framework of partnership firms under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It emphasized that a partnership firm is not a distinct legal entity separate from its partners. The property owned by the firm is considered to be jointly owned by all partners, and partners do not have individual ownership rights over specific assets of the firm. The Court referred to relevant sections of the Partnership Act to support its interpretation. It highlighted that partners are entitled to a share of profits and assets of the firm but cannot deal with any portion of the property as their own during the partnership's existence. The Court also cited previous judgments to reinforce the principle that partners cannot assign their interest in specific partnership property to others.In conclusion, the High Court held that partners cannot individually gift the property of the firm to their wives during the partnership's subsistence. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision allowing the gifts was deemed unjustified. Additionally, the Court ruled that the firm could be assessed for tax on rental income from the property at Madras from July 1982. The judgment favored the Revenue and went against the assessee. The judges unanimously agreed on the decision, and no costs were awarded in the case.
TaxTMI 