https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36609 The Tribunal upheld that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had the authority to condone the delay in filing the declaration. It was established that a change in the firm's constitution required the agreement of all partners and could not be unilateral. The firm was deemed entitled to continue registration as there was no change in the constitution or profit-sharing ratio, despite secret profits made by some partners. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the continuation of registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:36:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36609 The Tribunal upheld that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had the authority to condone the delay in filing the declaration. It was established that a change in the firm's constitution required the agreement of all partners and could not be unilateral. The firm was deemed entitled to continue registration as there was no change in the constitution or profit-sharing ratio, despite secret profits made by some partners. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the continuation of registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36609