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 the assessee-firm was entitled to renewal of registration for the relevant assessment years when one partner attained majority and the loss-sharing arrangement could not be ascertained from the partnership deed.
Analysis: Renewal under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 depends on the absence of any change in the constitution of the firm or in the shares of the partners as evidenced by the instrument of partnership. The Court applied the principle that, where partners have unequal shares and the deed does not disclose how losses are to be apportioned after a material change in the status of one partner, there is no basis for assuming the continuance of the earlier loss-sharing arrangement. On the facts, after the minor became a major, the proportion in which losses were to be shared could not be gathered from the partnership deed, and the required certainty for continued registration was lacking.
Conclusion: The assessee-firm was not entitled to renewal of registration.
Ratio Decidendi: For continued registration of a firm, the partnership instrument must disclose the shares of the partners with sufficient certainty, including the manner of apportionment of losses; if, on a material change, the loss-sharing shares cannot be ascertained from the deed, renewal is not available under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.