Partnership registration can be upheld when multiple deeds together disclose partners, shares, and terms of the firm.

Registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 may be granted where the partnership deeds, read together, identify the real partners, their respective shares, and the terms of the firm, even if the business is described through firm names rather than all individuals in a single deed. Crediting profits in the books to firm names does not defeat registration if the individual constituents' shares can be ascertained from the partnership documents on record. The application is valid where it is signed by the partners of the firm as constituted on the relevant date and the required schedules are furnished. The refusal of registration was therefore unjustified on the stated facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, despite the partnership being described through two firms and one individual, the profits being entered in the books in the firm names, the shares of the constituent partners not being set out in a single deed, and the registration application being framed on the basis of multiple partnership documents.

Analysis: Section 26A requires that the firm to be registered be the firm assessable for the relevant year of account and that the instrument of partnership specify the partners and their shares. A firm name may be used compendiously where the deed and signatures show that the real partnership is between the individuals constituting the firms and the outside partner. The fact that profits were credited in the books to the firm names was immaterial where the shares of the individual constituents could be ascertained from the partnership deeds on the record. The statutory requirement of specification of shares may be satisfied by more than one document constituting the instrument of partnership, provided the documents together disclose the partners, their shares, and the terms of the partnership. The application for registration also complied with the Act and the Rules, as it was signed by the partners of the firm as constituted on the relevant date and contained the necessary schedules.

Conclusion: The refusal of registration was unlawful; the assessee was entitled to registration.

---