1978 (12) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m was maintaining three sets of accounts for each of the aforesaid three businesses. He further found that Mahesh Kumar (minor) had been allocated his share of the loss suffered in the Agarwal Metal Stores business. The assessee explained that Agarwal Metal Stores was one of the businesses of the assessse-firm. There was enough profit in the other two businesses, namely, Oudh Iron Stores and Agarwal Hardware Stores, to cover the loss suffered in Agarwal Metal Stores and no loss had been allocated to Mahesh Kumar (minor). The ITO did not accept this explanation and found that the minor had been allocated a share in the loss. He rejected the application for registration: of the firm for the year 1.967-68. On appeal, the AAC held that Mahesh K....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtnership deed dated April 1, 1966, the Tribunal was right in holding that Shri Mahesh Kumar had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that allocation of loss of Agarwal Metal Stores to the minor did not violate the provisions of the deed as the net result of the three businesses carried on by the assessee was a profit ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the partnership deed was valid even though it had not been signed by anybody specifically on behalf of the minor ? " A perusal of the deed of partnership shows that Mahesh Kumar has specifically been ment....