https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6459 Registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 required strict compliance with the statutory conditions, including a partnership instrument that made the apportionment of losses ascertainable. The prescribed form and schedule contemplated disclosure of loss-sharing because losses affected assessment and set-off. A general clause referring to the Indian Partnership Act was insufficient, since section 13(b) only supplies a default rule where profits are equally shared and does not cure an unresolved loss-sharing arrangement. Where the deed left loss apportionment, including the minor's position, uncertain, the Income-tax Officer could not verify compliance. The firm therefore was not entitled to registration. en-us Mon, 06 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6459 Registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 required strict compliance with the statutory conditions, including a partnership instrument that made the apportionment of losses ascertainable. The prescribed form and schedule contemplated disclosure of loss-sharing because losses affected assessment and set-off. A general clause referring to the Indian Partnership Act was insufficient, since section 13(b) only supplies a default rule where profits are equally shared and does not cure an unresolved loss-sharing arrangement. Where the deed left loss apportionment, including the minor's position, uncertain, the Income-tax Officer could not verify compliance. The firm therefore was not entitled to registration. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6459