Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 was entitled to registration where minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership and the guardians had not signed the deed, but had assented to the terms and accepted the benefits on behalf of the minors.
Analysis: Registration under section 184(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 depends on a partnership being evidenced by an instrument and the individual shares being specified therein. The requirement is not that every participant must sign the deed, and a minor cannot be a partner in the full sense under the law of partnership. The record showed that the guardians had knowledge of the deed, accepted the benefits on behalf of the minors, and acted upon the arrangement. The absence of the guardians' signatures in the deed itself did not, by itself, invalidate the instrument or negate the genuineness of the firm.
Conclusion: The firm was entitled to registration, and the question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: For registration of a firm, it is sufficient that the partnership is evidenced by an instrument specifying the shares; the deed is not invalid merely because minors admitted to its benefits are not represented by signed acceptance in the instrument itself, if guardian assent is otherwise established.