1989 (1) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), by the Tribunal to this court. The questions are : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any evidence to hold that the share of the deceased father in the main partnership firm devolved on his sons in equal shares by succession ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... partnership firm on the sons by succession. The question in regard to the effect of the devolution of the property in the., case of the joint Mitakshara family was not raised nor considered by the Tribunal. The only question that calls for determination is whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was a genuine sub-partnership which was entitled to registration. The facts as state....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ame into existence in this manner. The application for registration of the firm under section 185 of the Act was refused by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that no genuine partnership had come into being. The Tribunal, following the principle laid down in the case of Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 323 (SC), held that the concept of sub-partnership had been recognised India and reg....