https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17095 Land stated to have been contributed by a partner as capital to a partnership firm could not be treated as having validly passed to the firm without a registered instrument of transfer. Because no registered document existed evidencing transfer of rights in the immovable property, section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act required compulsory registration and no legal right in the land could be said to have vested in the firm. The question was answered in the negative and against the Revenue, with the alleged contribution held not to constitute a valid transfer to the assessee-firm. en-us Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:10:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17095 Land stated to have been contributed by a partner as capital to a partnership firm could not be treated as having validly passed to the firm without a registered instrument of transfer. Because no registered document existed evidencing transfer of rights in the immovable property, section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act required compulsory registration and no legal right in the land could be said to have vested in the firm. The question was answered in the negative and against the Revenue, with the alleged contribution held not to constitute a valid transfer to the assessee-firm. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17095