TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1957 (2) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cified in the instrument of partnership dated the 10th of March, 1951, which was sought to be registered?" According to the statement of the case there is no controversy about the facts giving rise to this reference. On the 10th of March, 1951, the firm S.A. Rahim and Co. and the firm Haji Maula Bakhsh Muhammad Shariff entered into a partnership. Each component of this larger firm is a partnership constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the names and the individual shares of the partners in their respective partnerships con- cerns. In the instrument of partnership of the assessee firm, neither the names nor the individual shares of the partners of the component firms, viz., S.A. Rahim and Co. and Haji Maula Bakhsh M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e also constituted under instruments of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners. Some observations of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court in Messrs. Chandrika Parsad Ram Swarup v. Income-tax Commissioner *[1939] 7 I.T.R. 269 were reproduced at length without appreciating that it was a case which dealt with the legality of a partnership constituted between two firms and had nothing to do with the registration of such a firm under the Income-tax Act. As noticed above, in the assessment of the assessee firm the Income-tax Officer had declined to register it because the instrument of partnership and the application for registra- tion did not comply with the requirements of section 26A and the rules prescribed under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, did not comply with the aforesaid pro- visions of the Income-tax Act. Mr. A.R. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the names and the shares of the partners in the assessee firm could be easily ascertained with reference to the constitution of the two firms which constitute the assessee partnership. In support of this he borrowed the argument of the learned Judges in Messrs. Chandrika Prasad Ram Swarup v. Income- tax Commissioner [1939] 7 I.T.R. 269, but there is an obvious fallacy in his contention. It is true that for the purpose of the assessment of income-tax a partner- ship between two firms may be held valid on the ground that in fact it is a partnership between all the partners of the two compone....