TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Firm Registration Denied for Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements</h1> <h3>Sanjay Construction Company. Versus Income Tax Officer.</h3> The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision to refuse registration to the assessee-firm due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements outlined in ... Firm, Registration, Application For Issues:Registration of a firm under section 184(3), (4), and (5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Facts:The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1977-78 filed by an assessee firm treated as URF by the ITO. Following the death of a partner, the firm's deed of partnership was amended to include the deceased partner's wife as a new partner. The application for registration was filed after the end of the previous year, leading to the ITO's refusal to grant registration.2. Arguments Before AAC and Appellate Tribunal:The assessee contended before the AAC that the delay in filing the application was due to mourning customs, and the partnership deed was eventually submitted during assessment proceedings. The Appellate Tribunal considered the provisions of section 184(3), (4) and held that the conditions for registration were not fulfilled without sufficient cause.3. Legal Provisions and Precedents:Section 184(3), (4), and (5) of the Act mandate specific requirements for registration, including the timing of application submission and accompanying original partnership instrument. Precedents like Ramamohan Motor Service v. CIT emphasize the importance of filing the application along with the partnership deed before the end of the previous year.4. Decision and Rationale:The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision to refuse registration based on the failure to meet statutory requirements within the specified timeline. The delay in drawing up the partnership deed beyond the previous year's end precluded the condonation of delay under section 184(4). The Tribunal concurred with the authorities below in denying registration to the assessee-firm.5. Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming the refusal of registration to the assessee-firm due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements outlined in section 184(3), (4), and (5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
