1986 (2) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss Shobha, Miss Chitra and Miss Veena-were.admitted to the benefits of partnership. The share of the partners and the minors in the profit and loss of the firm were as under :                                           Profit               Loss Mrs. P. V. Chellam                     10 per cent          25 per cent Mrs. Chella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp;                 Profit              Loss Mrs. P. V. Chellam                       10 per cent      16 1/3 per cent Mrs. Chellam Narayana                    15 per cent          25 per cent Mr. P. V. Narayana Iyer                  15 per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther urged that there was no change in the constitution of the firm till 2-5-1975 and, hence, Form No. 12 filed was sufficient. According to him, later when the firm was advised the necessity of filing Form No. 11A, the same was filed on 30-3-1976 and there was sufficient reason for the delay in filing of the same. The AAC observed that in the new partnership deed dated 2-5-1975 it was agreed to give retrospective effect from 18-1-1975 even though the option was stated to have been exercised by Miss Shobha in May 1975, that by giving retrospective effect from 18-1-1975, she became a full-fledged partner with effect from 18-1-1975, that from the date onwards she was not only entitled to share the profit but also in the loss, that thus there ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... shall continue for a term at will of the partners' will clearly show that change in the constitution occurred on 18-1-1975, i.e., within the relevant previous year itself. After the said change in the constitution of the firm, no fresh deed of partnership was executed in the relevant accounting year before 31-3-1975 and was filed before 31-3-1975 along with Form No. 11A. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Badri Narayana Kashi Prasad's case and CIT v. Durgaprasad Rajaram Adatiya [1984] 146 ITR 580 (MP). Instruction No. 26 (termed as Circular No. 26 by the assessee) stood modified by Instruction No. 1082 and the assessee is not entitled to registration even as per that also. To this the assessee's counsel replied that although clause 2 w....