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 assessee firm was lawfully constituted and entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, despite the contracts being taken in the names of individual partners and the allegation of rigging or knock-out bids.
Analysis: The finding of the Tribunal that there was no proof of rigging or knock-out bids was a finding of fact and was not liable to be reopened in the reference. The Forest Act did not prohibit exploitation of coupe contracts by the firm where the contracts were taken by individual partners, and section 18 authorised such contracts. The contracts themselves contemplated exploitation by assigns, and clause 2 of the agreement, even if infringed, could at most give rise to a contractual breach and not to illegality under the Forest Act.
Conclusion: The assessee firm was lawfully constituted and was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922; the question was answered in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute does not prohibit the arrangement, exploitation of government contracts by a partnership through contracts entered into in the names of individual partners is not illegal, and a mere breach of a contractual clause does not negate the firm's entitlement to registration.