TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
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 under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60.
Analysis: The partnership deed dated 5 April 1957 was signed by all the individuals concerned, including the two partners of Jay Vishin & Co., and the applications for registration, read with the two partnership deeds and the supplementary deed, made the constitution of the firm and the shares of the partners clear. The description of one partner as Jay Vishin & Co. in the preamble did not alter the legal position, because the real partners were the constituent individuals and not the firm as an entity. The arrangement was treated as a genuine partnership on the facts, and the earlier decision in Chhotalal Devchand was applied as binding authority on the same principle.
Conclusion: The assessee-firm was entitled to registration and renewal under section 26A, and the answer to the reference was in the affirmative.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a partnership deed is signed by all the constituent individuals of a firm, and the documents as a whole show that the partners intended to associate as individuals with clearly specified shares, the firm is entitled to registration even if one partner is described compendiously by the name of the firm.
TaxTMI 
