Genuine partnership requirement defeats registration where cumulative facts show the business was one person's concern.

Registration under section 26A is available only to a genuine partnership satisfying the statutory requirements. In a reference under section 66, the High Court's role is advisory, and the Tribunal's factual findings bind unless unsupported by material, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations. On the facts, the Tribunal relied cumulatively on the original conduct of the business by one individual, his continued control of contracts and management, the lack of real participation by the alleged partners, the implausibility of the explanation for their introduction, inadequate capital contribution, and absence of genuine profit division. Those circumstances supported the finding that the firm was not genuine and that the business belonged to one person, so registration was not admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether there was material for the Tribunal to hold that the alleged firm was not a genuine partnership and that the business belonged only to one person, so as to deny registration.

Analysis: Registration under section 26A is available only when the firm is constituted by a genuine partnership satisfying the statutory requirements. In a reference under section 66, the High Court's jurisdiction is advisory, and findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are binding unless they are unsupported by material, perverse, or based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations. On the facts found, the Tribunal relied on the circumstances that the business was originally started by one individual, that he continued to secure and manage the contracts, that the alleged partners had no real role in the conduct of the business, that the stated reasons for their introduction were not credible, that the alleged capital contribution was insufficient, and that the profits were not genuinely divided. The conclusion was drawn on the cumulative effect of these relevant circumstances.

Conclusion: There was material for the Tribunal to conclude that the alleged partnership was not genuine, that the business was really the sole concern of Y. Chennaiah, and that registration under section 26A was not admissible.

Ratio Decidendi: In a reference under the Income-tax Act, a Tribunal's finding that a firm is not genuine and belongs to one person will be upheld where it is supported by relevant material considered cumulatively and is neither perverse nor based on irrelevant considerations.

---