https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6755 Registration under rule 6A of the Income-tax Rules, 1922 depended on proof that an existing firm in law was in fact constituted. The Tribunal accepted that the alleged partner had not contributed capital and was not a real partner; on that finding, the supposed firm lacked the minimum two distinct persons required for a valid partnership. A benami characterisation of the alleged partner did not cure the defect, because there was no legal partnership capable of registration or renewal under section 26A. en-us Mon, 04 Jul 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6755 Registration under rule 6A of the Income-tax Rules, 1922 depended on proof that an existing firm in law was in fact constituted. The Tribunal accepted that the alleged partner had not contributed capital and was not a real partner; on that finding, the supposed firm lacked the minimum two distinct persons required for a valid partnership. A benami characterisation of the alleged partner did not cure the defect, because there was no legal partnership capable of registration or renewal under section 26A. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 04 Jul 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6755