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, on a true construction of the partnership deed, a valid partnership existed between the adult partners so as to be registerable under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, where two persons described as partners were minors.
Analysis: A minor cannot be a full-fledged partner in law, but under section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a minor may be admitted to the benefits of partnership with the consent of all the partners. Section 2(6B) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 recognises that a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership is included within the expression "partner" for income-tax purposes. The deed, read as a whole, showed a valid contract of partnership between the adult members, while the clauses purporting to make the minors liable for losses could not operate against them because such liability is inconsistent with their legal status. The deed was therefore construed as admitting the minors only to the benefits of the partnership and not as making them full partners.
Conclusion: The firm was a valid partnership capable of registration under section 26A, and the question referred was answered in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A partnership deed that is valid between competent adult partners is not invalid merely because minors are described as partners; if the deed can reasonably be construed as admitting the minors only to the benefits of partnership, the firm remains registerable.