Valid partnership for tax registration turns on profit-sharing and common business, not mandatory capital contribution by every partner.

A valid partnership for income-tax registration does not require every partner to contribute capital or personal skill; under section 4 of the Partnership Act, the controlling test is an agreement to share profits or losses and carry on business by all or any acting for all. The article also notes that where the Tribunal finds the concerned partners are not benamidars, that is a factual finding and does not by itself raise a referable question of law under section 185(1). On that basis, no separate reference was required on the consequential registration issue, and the mandamus petition seeking a reference was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the alleged absence of capital contribution or personal skill by some partners negatived the existence of a valid partnership for purposes of registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether the Explanation to section 185(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was attracted on the finding that the concerned partners were not proved to be benamidars; and (iii) whether, in the circumstances, a reference on the consequential registration question was required.

Issue (i): whether the alleged absence of capital contribution or personal skill by some partners negatived the existence of a valid partnership for purposes of registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The legal test for a partnership is governed by section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, namely, an agreement to share the profits or losses of business and carrying on of business by all or any acting for all. On that test, the existence of capital contribution or personal skill by every partner is not an indispensable requirement. The issue was stated to stand concluded by binding authority.

Conclusion: The question did not survive as an open issue of law against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the Explanation to section 185(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was attracted on the finding that the concerned partners were not proved to be benamidars.

Analysis: The Tribunal's finding that the partners were not benamidars was treated as a pure finding of fact. No independent question of law arose from that finding for reference.

Conclusion: The Explanation to section 185(1) was held to be inapplicable on a referable question of law.

Issue (iii): whether, in the circumstances, a reference on the consequential registration question was required.

Analysis: The registration question was purely consequential and depended on the answer to the principal legal issue, which was already concluded.

Conclusion: No separate referable question arose on the consequential issue.

Final Conclusion: The petition for mandamus to require a reference was rejected and the matter stood finally disposed of against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For reference proceedings, only a real question of law arising from the Tribunal's order is referable; where the governing legal test is settled and the remaining finding is one of fact, no reference can be compelled.

---