https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7536 A partnership exploiting forest coupe contracts through agreements taken in the names of individual partners was not unlawful where the statute did not prohibit the arrangement. The Tribunal's finding that there was no proof of rigging or knock-out bids was a finding of fact and could not be reopened in reference. The Forest Act did not bar such exploitation, section 18 authorised the contracts, and the agreements contemplated assignment. Any breach of clause 2 was at most a contractual breach, not illegality under the Forest Act. The firm was therefore lawfully constituted and entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7536 A partnership exploiting forest coupe contracts through agreements taken in the names of individual partners was not unlawful where the statute did not prohibit the arrangement. The Tribunal's finding that there was no proof of rigging or knock-out bids was a finding of fact and could not be reopened in reference. The Forest Act did not bar such exploitation, section 18 authorised the contracts, and the agreements contemplated assignment. Any breach of clause 2 was at most a contractual breach, not illegality under the Forest Act. The firm was therefore lawfully constituted and entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7536