TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court rules genuine partnership despite low business sale & control by one partner; income-tax authorities erred.</h1> The court ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the partnership firm was genuine despite factors like the sale of the business for a low amount and ... Reference Issues Involved:1. Genuineness of the Partnership Firm2. Refusal of Registration under the Income-tax ActSummary:1. Genuineness of the Partnership Firm:The primary issue was whether the partnership firm constituted by the deed dated July 1, 1959, was genuine. Ramesh Chandra Moondra, who was running Subhash Medical Stores, transferred the business to his wife and sister-in-law for Rs. 4,500 and continued to manage the business as an employee. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected the registration application on the grounds that the two ladies had no knowledge of the business, and it was controlled by Ramesh Chandra Moondra, indicating a benami transaction aimed at evading tax.The court examined various precedents to understand the genuineness of partnerships involving close relatives and found that mere inter se relations or lack of business knowledge among partners do not necessarily indicate a sham transaction. The court noted that the firm was duly registered under the Partnership Act, had a bank account, and informed the Sales Tax Department about the partnership.2. Refusal of Registration under the Income-tax Act:The Tribunal, influenced by factors such as the sale of a flourishing business for a petty amount, the continued control by Ramesh Chandra Moondra, and the limited education of the two ladies, concluded that the partnership was not genuine. However, the court emphasized that these factors alone do not suffice to deny registration u/s 185 of the I.T. Act. The court held that the legal requirements of a partnership were fulfilled, and the business was carried on by the partners through an authorized person, which is permissible.The court concluded that the income-tax authorities were in error in refusing the registration of the firm and that there was no satisfactory material to conclude that the partnership was not genuine. Therefore, the question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
