https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39832 A partnership deed was construed reasonably for registration purposes, and the firm was held to satisfy the requirement of specifying individual shares under section 26A. The adult partners' shares were read as equal, while the minor was treated as admitted only to the benefits of partnership; the apparent uncertainty arose from translation, not from any real omission in the instrument. Because the deed, read fairly, also covered the profit and loss allocation, refusal of renewal of registration on the ground that the shares or loss-sharing arrangement were unspecified was unjustified. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:27:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39832 A partnership deed was construed reasonably for registration purposes, and the firm was held to satisfy the requirement of specifying individual shares under section 26A. The adult partners' shares were read as equal, while the minor was treated as admitted only to the benefits of partnership; the apparent uncertainty arose from translation, not from any real omission in the instrument. Because the deed, read fairly, also covered the profit and loss allocation, refusal of renewal of registration on the ground that the shares or loss-sharing arrangement were unspecified was unjustified. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39832