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%
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 firm's immovable properties could validly stand transferred to the partners by journal entries without a registered instrument, and whether the partners' interest in the partnership assets, though including immovable property, was movable property not requiring registration.
Analysis: The transfer was effected by crediting the value of the partnership assets and debiting the partners' accounts. The ruling in the later case relied on by the Revenue was not followed because the binding Supreme Court authority held that a partner's interest in partnership assets is a movable interest and that a deed relinquishing such interest does not require registration merely because the firm's assets include immovable property. On that principle, the extinguishment of the firm's interest and the vesting of the assets in the partners could be validly brought about without a registered conveyance.
Conclusion: The transfer in favour of the partners was valid without registration, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The income from the immovable properties was not assessable in the firm's hands after the transfer, and the departmental appeal was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A partner's interest in partnership assets is movable property, and a deed or entry effecting relinquishment of that interest does not require registration merely because the partnership assets include immovable property.