https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272781 Registration of a partnership firm under section 26A could not be refused on mere suspicion or inconclusive circumstances. The Court held that absence of capital contribution by some partners and non-disclosure of the firm's constitution to bankers were, by themselves, insufficient to prove that the partnership deed was unreal or sham. Refusal of registration required relevant material showing that the partnership was not genuine, and unsupported assumptions could not replace proof. On the facts discussed, the deed was treated as a genuine partnership and registration was upheld in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 25 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 May 2018 15:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272781 Registration of a partnership firm under section 26A could not be refused on mere suspicion or inconclusive circumstances. The Court held that absence of capital contribution by some partners and non-disclosure of the firm's constitution to bankers were, by themselves, insufficient to prove that the partnership deed was unreal or sham. Refusal of registration required relevant material showing that the partnership was not genuine, and unsupported assumptions could not replace proof. On the facts discussed, the deed was treated as a genuine partnership and registration was upheld in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272781