https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276152 Renewal of partnership-firm registration was not treated as an automatic entitlement where the governing rule was discretionary and required a truthful certificate that profits had been divided or credited according to the partnership deed. Because part of the profits had not been distributed or shown in accordance with the instrument, the Income-tax Officer could refuse renewal. The objection that the reference was incompetent also failed, since refusal to renew was treated as substance equivalent to refusal to register, and the Tribunal's action under section 33 was sufficient to sustain reference jurisdiction. The authority was therefore entitled to decline renewal on the facts found. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Oct 2018 17:50:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276152 Renewal of partnership-firm registration was not treated as an automatic entitlement where the governing rule was discretionary and required a truthful certificate that profits had been divided or credited according to the partnership deed. Because part of the profits had not been distributed or shown in accordance with the instrument, the Income-tax Officer could refuse renewal. The objection that the reference was incompetent also failed, since refusal to renew was treated as substance equivalent to refusal to register, and the Tribunal's action under section 33 was sufficient to sustain reference jurisdiction. The authority was therefore entitled to decline renewal on the facts found. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276152