https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61777 The appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to grant registration to the firm and provide an opportunity for rectification of the signature defect by one of the partners within the specified period. The tribunal criticized the ITO for not seeking expert opinion on the alleged forgery and failing to follow the provisions of section 185(2) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the genuineness of the partnership and the need for correction before denying registration. en-us Wed, 06 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:25:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61777 The appellate tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to grant registration to the firm and provide an opportunity for rectification of the signature defect by one of the partners within the specified period. The tribunal criticized the ITO for not seeking expert opinion on the alleged forgery and failing to follow the provisions of section 185(2) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the genuineness of the partnership and the need for correction before denying registration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61777