https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276254 A partnership remained registrable even though two partners represented a Hindu undivided family, because membership of the family is a matter of status while partnership is contractual; the family itself was not treated as a partner, and the firm's validity was not affected. Registration also could not be refused because one partner had separate arrangements to share his profits, since such sub-partnership or private profit-sharing operated only inter se and did not alter the genuineness of the original firm. Post-accrual diversion of profits was relevant, if at all, to assessment, not to registrability. The firm was held entitled to registration under section 26A. en-us Fri, 12 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Nov 2018 14:57:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276254 A partnership remained registrable even though two partners represented a Hindu undivided family, because membership of the family is a matter of status while partnership is contractual; the family itself was not treated as a partner, and the firm's validity was not affected. Registration also could not be refused because one partner had separate arrangements to share his profits, since such sub-partnership or private profit-sharing operated only inter se and did not alter the genuineness of the original firm. Post-accrual diversion of profits was relevant, if at all, to assessment, not to registrability. The firm was held entitled to registration under section 26A. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276254