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 that first came into existence by oral agreement can be treated as constituted under an instrument of partnership for the purpose of registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act when the deed executed later recites that the partnership had previously existed on the same terms.
Analysis: The expression "constituted under an instrument" was understood to mean a firm created or formed by a formal deed. However, the fact that the partners recited a prior oral arrangement on the same terms did not justify denying registration once the partnership terms had been embodied in a written instrument. The instrument could not operate retrospectively for assessment purposes, but it could govern the firm from the date of the deed. The statutory object of permitting registration where the partnership shares are specified was treated as controlling, and a harsh literal construction was rejected.
Conclusion: The firm was entitled to registration under section 26A, and the question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A partnership deed executed for registration under section 26A is sufficient to constitute the firm under the instrument from the date of the deed, even if the deed recites an earlier oral partnership on the same terms.