https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276533 Section 26A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 required the partnership deed itself to expressly and definitely specify each partner's share in firm profits. A clause dealing only with capital allocation was insufficient, and profit-sharing could not be implied from the general rule under the Partnership Act. Earlier registration for prior years did not create an absolute bar to refusal of renewal where the statutory requirement was in fact unmet, because the tax authority could correct an erroneous earlier view. On that footing, the deed failed the registration condition and refusal of renewal was justified. en-us Wed, 15 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Nov 2018 14:32:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276533 Section 26A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 required the partnership deed itself to expressly and definitely specify each partner's share in firm profits. A clause dealing only with capital allocation was insufficient, and profit-sharing could not be implied from the general rule under the Partnership Act. Earlier registration for prior years did not create an absolute bar to refusal of renewal where the statutory requirement was in fact unmet, because the tax authority could correct an erroneous earlier view. On that footing, the deed failed the registration condition and refusal of renewal was justified. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276533