Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1980 (10) TMI 31 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Valid partnership under Indian law can include skill & labor contributions, not just capital. Registration may be granted if genuine. The court held that a valid partnership could exist between a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) karta and his undivided son, even if the son did not contribute ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Valid partnership under Indian law can include skill & labor contributions, not just capital. Registration may be granted if genuine.

                          The court held that a valid partnership could exist between a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) karta and his undivided son, even if the son did not contribute separate capital but provided skill and labor. The court emphasized that under the Indian Partnership Act, contributions of skill and labor are sufficient consideration for a partnership. Regarding registration under the Income-tax Act, the court stated that if the partnership is genuine, the assessee would be entitled to registration for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal was tasked with determining the genuineness of the partnership for further proceedings.




                          Issues Involved:

                          1. Validity of a partnership between a karta and his undivided son without separate capital contribution.
                          2. Entitlement to registration under section 185(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Validity of Partnership:

                          The primary issue was whether a valid partnership could be constituted between Ramchand Nawalrai (karta) and his undivided son, Jaikumar, evidenced by a deed of partnership dated 5th September 1969, despite Jaikumar not contributing any capital from his separate and individual property.

                          The court noted that a HUF acting through its karta can enter into a valid partnership with a stranger, and it is not necessary for a partner to contribute capital; the contribution of skill and labour is sufficient. The court referenced Lindley on Partnership and the case of Dale v. Hamilton to support the principle that any contribution, whether capital or labour, is sufficient consideration for a partnership agreement.

                          The court also discussed the definition of partnership under section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which does not necessitate combining property for sharing profits. The court referred to the Privy Council's decision in Lachhman Das v. CIT, which held that a karta can enter into a partnership with a family member contributing his separate property. The court extended this principle to include contributions of skill and labour, concluding that a coparcener can enter into a partnership with the karta by contributing skill and labour.

                          The court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's decision in Firm Bhagat Ram Mohanlal v. CEPT, which did not address the specific issue of a coparcener contributing only skill and labour. The court emphasized that the observations in Firm Bhagat Ram Mohanlal should be limited to its facts and did not disapprove the principle in Lachhman Das.

                          The court addressed concerns about the profits earned by the partnership, stating that if a coparcener's share in profits is directly related to his skill and labour, it would be his separate property. The court concluded that there can be a valid partnership between a karta and a coparcener contributing only skill and labour.

                          2. Entitlement to Registration:

                          The second issue was whether the assessee is entitled to registration for the assessment year 1970-71 under section 185(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

                          The court held that if the partnership is found to be genuine, the assessee would be entitled to registration. The court noted that the Tribunal did not decide on the genuineness of the firm, as it had concluded that there could be no valid partnership. Therefore, the question of genuineness must be examined by the Tribunal.

                          Conclusion:

                          The court answered the questions as follows:
                          1. There can be a valid partnership between Ramchand and his undivided son, Jaikumar, as evidenced by the deed of partnership dated 5th September 1969, even though Jaikumar did not contribute any capital from his separate and individual property. The Tribunal must examine the genuineness of the partnership.
                          2. The assessee would be entitled to registration for the assessment year 1970-71 if the Tribunal concludes that the partnership was genuine.

                          There was no order as to costs of this reference.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found