https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65877 The Tribunal concluded that the partnership deed was invalid due to the lack of representation of Lord Venkateswara. The provisions of Section 184(3) were contravened as the application for registration was not signed by all partners. The Karnataka High Court decision was distinguished, and the Calcutta High Court decision was found applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and ordered the cancellation of the registration of the assessee-firm. en-us Tue, 08 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:29:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65877 The Tribunal concluded that the partnership deed was invalid due to the lack of representation of Lord Venkateswara. The provisions of Section 184(3) were contravened as the application for registration was not signed by all partners. The Karnataka High Court decision was distinguished, and the Calcutta High Court decision was found applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and ordered the cancellation of the registration of the assessee-firm. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65877