https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19981 The court upheld the validity of the fresh partnership deed dated July 1, 1990, finding that the petitioner had willingly retired from the partnership. It ruled that the reconstituted firm was obligated to file income-tax returns and rejected the petitioner's claim for relief. The court dismissed the petitioner's representations to the Income-tax Officer as lacking statutory basis. It outlined the registration procedure for firms under the Income-tax Act and emphasized that registration is a statutory right. The court declined the petitioner's challenge to the genuineness of the reconstituted firm, deferring to the ongoing assessment proceedings. The writ petition was rejected, and the petitioner's request for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was denied. en-us Mon, 06 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:16:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19981 The court upheld the validity of the fresh partnership deed dated July 1, 1990, finding that the petitioner had willingly retired from the partnership. It ruled that the reconstituted firm was obligated to file income-tax returns and rejected the petitioner's claim for relief. The court dismissed the petitioner's representations to the Income-tax Officer as lacking statutory basis. It outlined the registration procedure for firms under the Income-tax Act and emphasized that registration is a statutory right. The court declined the petitioner's challenge to the genuineness of the reconstituted firm, deferring to the ongoing assessment proceedings. The writ petition was rejected, and the petitioner's request for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was denied. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19981