https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14133 A partnership firm remained entitled to continuation of registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 because the deed identified the partners and their profit shares, and profits were required to be apportioned accordingly. Alleged undisclosed donations and unrecorded investments by one partner did not, without proof of complicity by the other partners or proof that profits were shared contrary to the deed, amount to a change in the firm's constitution. The erring partner could face action, but the firm's registration could not be denied on that basis. en-us Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:15:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14133 A partnership firm remained entitled to continuation of registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 because the deed identified the partners and their profit shares, and profits were required to be apportioned accordingly. Alleged undisclosed donations and unrecorded investments by one partner did not, without proof of complicity by the other partners or proof that profits were shared contrary to the deed, amount to a change in the firm's constitution. The erring partner could face action, but the firm's registration could not be denied on that basis. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14133