1983 (3) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The case Shri Sogani, ld. representative for the assessee is that he does not press Form No. 11A and the new deed dt. 27th February, 1974 and that continuation of registration be granted to the assessee on the basis of the declaration given in Form No. 12, only. He says that Form No. 11A was filed in alternative, inasmuch as, the registration for the earlier years was cancelled by the ITO and the order of the Tribunal was awaited till then. Form No. 11A was filed on 17th November, 1978 and the Tribunal gave its order reversing the order of the ITO cancelling the registration for the earlier years in 1981. It is in these circumstances, Shri Sogani says that for precaution's sake, Form No. 11A with the new deed was filed, though there was no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the asst. yr. 1975-76 and the following years. Shri Nanda argues that the period of six months enabling Shri Sureshchand to exercise the right of election whether he wanted to continue as a partner on attaining majority, did not expire during the asst. yr. 1973-74, but the period of six months had expired in the case of Shri Rameshchand during the asst. yr. 1975-76, but he failed to elect that he wanted to continue as a partner. Secondly, he says that there is no agreement how the share in the losses will be shared by the minor on attaining majority. Also, Shri Nanda argues that the conduct of the assessee itself showed that there was a change in the constitution of the firm and it was not entitled to continuation of registration u/s 18....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the change in the share ratio of profits only. The question of interpretation of this phrase came up before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jagjiwandas Govindji & Co. vs. CBDT & Ors. (1981) 132 ITR 769 (Bom) and, then the same Court took the view that the 'share of the partners' contemplated by s. 184(7) is a share in profits alone and not the share in losses. It is only when there is any change in the shares of the partners in respect of profits that there would be a change in the constitution of the firm. Then, the Court said: "However, if there is no change at all in the shares of the partners with respect to profits but only with respect to losses, there is no change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning of th....