https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38990 A partnership firm was held entitled to registration where one partner was an advocate and the deed contained a clause permitting participation in business, because the governing Bar Councils Act, 1926 did not impose a total ban on holding an interest in a firm but only on active participation. The Tribunal's finding and the advocate's unrebutted affidavit showed that he never in fact took part in the business and remained a sleeping partner, so the clause never operated. A mere authorisation to participate did not make the firm illegal; at most, any actual breach would attract disciplinary consequences for the advocate, not invalidate the partnership. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:59:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38990 A partnership firm was held entitled to registration where one partner was an advocate and the deed contained a clause permitting participation in business, because the governing Bar Councils Act, 1926 did not impose a total ban on holding an interest in a firm but only on active participation. The Tribunal's finding and the advocate's unrebutted affidavit showed that he never in fact took part in the business and remained a sleeping partner, so the clause never operated. A mere authorisation to participate did not make the firm illegal; at most, any actual breach would attract disciplinary consequences for the advocate, not invalidate the partnership. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38990