TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (3) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that Mayankutty has entered into th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the basis of this deed. The Income-tax Officer noticed that as per clause 2 of the deed, the reconstituted partnership should be deemed to have come into force with effect from April 1, 1975, and on that day Mayankutty was only a minor. So, he took the view that Mayankutty could not be a partner on April 1, 1975, and so the firm was not entitled to registration for the year 1976-77. In appeal, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tty was a major. Clause 2 of the partnership deed did not make Mayankutty a partner on April 1, 1975. It was provided only for the purpose of taking accounts. Since a valid partnership deed was entered into on August 25, 1975, the firm was entitled to registration. Construing the deed, the Appellate Tribunal held that the effect of clause 2 of the partnership deed is only to this effect -that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred the above two questions of law for the decision of this court. We heard counsel. We concur with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in holding that Mayankutty became a partner only on August 25, 1975, on the date when the deed was entered into. All that clause 2 of the deed provided was that the firm is to take accounts back to the date, April 1, 1975. It only means that for taking account....