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 firm was entitled to registration under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, where one partner was the karta of a Hindu undivided family and a subsequent partition decree had disrupted the family coparcenary.
Analysis: Section 26A required a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners, together with a proper application in the prescribed form. The fact that one partner described himself as karta of a Hindu undivided family did not alter the constitution of the firm, because the family members were not partners in the firm and had no contractual relation with the stranger partner. A disruption of the coparcenary only changed the internal rights of the family members inter se. It did not dissolve the partnership or affect the karta's status as a partner in the firm. The partition decree merely converted the family members' interest in the partnership share into tenancy in common.
Conclusion: The firm remained registrable under Section 26A, and the question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Disruption of a Hindu coparcenary does not, by itself, affect a partnership constituted by contract under an instrument specifying the partners' shares, and such a firm remains entitled to registration if the statutory requirements are otherwise satisfied.