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 validly registrable under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and whether a substantial question of law arose so as to require a reference by the Tribunal.
Analysis: The deed of partnership named only the fourteen persons as partners of the assessee-firm, and the surrounding circumstances did not compel the conclusion that the Ferozepore firm itself became a partner. The fact that the capital came from the Ferozepore firm and that one partner had agreed to share his profits with his partners there did not alter the legal character of the assessee-firm or make strangers to the deed partners in it. On the majority view, the materials supported the finding that Gosain Chander Bhan joined in his individual capacity, the alleged issue was not a substantial question of law, and the High Court was entitled to refuse a reference.
Conclusion: The assessee-firm was registrable, no substantial question of law arose, and the refusal to direct a reference was ; the decision was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the High Court's refusal to require a reference stood affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: A partner may bring in capital from another source or share his profits with others without converting those others into partners of the firm; where the deed and materials show that only the named individuals are partners, the firm remains validly constituted and a reference may be refused if no substantial question of law arises.
Dissenting Opinion: Mudholkar J. held that the cumulative effect of the facts raised a substantial and unsettled question of law as to the real constitution and registrability of the firm, and would have allowed the appeal and directed a reference.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
