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 the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration despite the partners carrying on an unlawful speculative business, and whether any question of law arose for reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The Tribunal had found that the partnership was constituted by a valid deed and that the essential element of mutual agency was present. The mere fact that the partners engaged in speculation in gur and shakkar, an activity said to be unlawful, did not by itself render the firm non-genuine or disentitle it to registration. On that factual foundation, no referable question of law was made out for the High Court under the reference provisions.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was right in treating the firm as lawfully constituted and in refusing registration denial under section 185(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No question of law arose for reference, and the Revenue's petition under section 256(2) failed.
Final Conclusion: The refusal to call for a reference was upheld and the Revenue's challenge was rejected, leaving the assessee-firm's registration undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: An unlawful activity carried on by partners does not, by itself, make a partnership non-genuine where the deed establishes a lawful constitution and the element of mutual agency exists; in such a case, no referable question of law arises merely on that basis.