https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5919 Registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 depended on proof of a genuine partnership in fact, not merely a deed valid in law. The Court found that reserved control with the original partners, exclusion of the incoming partners from business affairs and accounts, their continuing role as employees, and their lack of knowledge of partnership terms showed they were not real partners. The absence of convincing evidence of profit distribution, together with unauthenticated loose sheets, further undermined genuineness. Benamidars were not an absolute bar to registration, but that principle applied only where the firm was otherwise genuine; on these facts, registration was properly refused. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5919 Registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 depended on proof of a genuine partnership in fact, not merely a deed valid in law. The Court found that reserved control with the original partners, exclusion of the incoming partners from business affairs and accounts, their continuing role as employees, and their lack of knowledge of partnership terms showed they were not real partners. The absence of convincing evidence of profit distribution, together with unauthenticated loose sheets, further undermined genuineness. Benamidars were not an absolute bar to registration, but that principle applied only where the firm was otherwise genuine; on these facts, registration was properly refused. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5919