TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee-firm was entitled to registration and renewal of registration for the relevant assessment years under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The decisive question was whether the partnership deed of 5 April 1950, read with the declaration of 10 May 1950 and the surrounding conduct, showed that the assessee was a firm consisting of six partners, or whether one of the partners was itself the firm of Bishan Singh Jaswant Singh. The Court held that the documents, when reasonably construed, disclosed only three partners to the assessee-firm: G. S. Dugal & Co. Ltd., the firm of Bishan Singh Jaswant Singh, and S. Lakhinder Singh. The declaration of 10 May 1950 merely provided for distribution of the share receivable by the smaller firm among its own partners and did not alter the constitution of the larger firm. The subsequent partnership deed of 22 August 1951, the entries in the books, and the returns filed by the assessee also supported the view that the smaller firm, and not its individual partners, was treated as the partner in the assessee-firm. Since a firm as such is not a person capable of entering into partnership, and the statutory requirements for registration had to be strictly complied with, the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for registration.
Conclusion: The assessee-firm was not entitled to registration or renewal of registration for any of the assessment years.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: For registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the instrument of partnership and the relevant documents in existence during the accounting year must show a valid firm constituted by persons legally capable of partnering, with individual shares sufficiently specified; a firm as such cannot be treated as a partner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
