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 income-tax authorities were justified in refusing registration to the firm under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: Registration under section 26A was available only to a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners. The partnership deed relied on by the assessee showed only two partners and described the third person as a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership; it did not constitute an instrument showing the present firm of three partners. The authorities were therefore justified in holding that the deed could not support renewal of registration for the altered constitution of the firm. In addition, the law required annual division or credit of profits between the partners, and the record showed that the profits of the business were neither divided nor credited as required.
Conclusion: The refusal of registration was justified on both grounds, and the answer to the referred question was in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: A firm seeking registration under section 26A must strictly satisfy the statutory conditions, including a valid instrument of partnership showing the existing partners and their shares and annual division or credit of profits in accordance with the Act.