https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189231 Section 33B empowered revision of the Income-tax Officer's order in relation to the order actually passed after the provision came into force, so the assessment year itself did not bar revision. A valid firm for registration under section 26A required a lawful partnership contract, and minors could not be treated as competent partners; section 2(6B) did not create a partnership where none existed, so the registration claim failed. On the jurisdictional question, the majority treated section 33B as limited to the Income-tax Officer's order, but on the facts accepted that cancelling registration would in substance undo an assessment already carried in appeal, making the revisional order unsustainable. en-us Wed, 04 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jan 2017 15:30:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189231 Section 33B empowered revision of the Income-tax Officer's order in relation to the order actually passed after the provision came into force, so the assessment year itself did not bar revision. A valid firm for registration under section 26A required a lawful partnership contract, and minors could not be treated as competent partners; section 2(6B) did not create a partnership where none existed, so the registration claim failed. On the jurisdictional question, the majority treated section 33B as limited to the Income-tax Officer's order, but on the facts accepted that cancelling registration would in substance undo an assessment already carried in appeal, making the revisional order unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189231