TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (7) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....constituted with effect from April 1, 1957, consisting of, as appearing from the preamble of the deed, dated April 5, 1957, four partners, namely, (1) Parsram Dhamanlal Mariwalla, (2) Madhavji Khimji, (3) Laxman Velji, and (4) Messrs. Jay Vishin & Co., partners 1 and 4 having one-third share each and the other partners having one-sixth share each therein. The partners were to share the losses in the same proportion. Clause 4 of the deed related to capital contribution. Clause 13 thereof provided for control over financial matters and clause 16 provided for contingency arising on the death of any partner. In the agreed statement of the case it is clearly stated that the partnership deed was signed by Parsram D. Mariwalla, Madhavji Khimji, La....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on Salary or Share of Name of partner Address admit- capital or commis- balance Remarks tance loans sion from of firm profits --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parsram D. 27, Western 5-4-57 6% Rs. 300/- 1/3rd Mariwalla India House, P.M. Road, Fort, Bombay. Madhavji Kliimji do. do. 6% Rs. 300/- 1/6th Laxman Velji do. do. 6% Rs. 300/- 1/6th Vishindas Lekhraj do. do. 6% Rs. nil 1/6th Jawahar Lekhraj do. do. 6% Rs. nil 1/6th --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessment ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding to him, the case was covered by the decision of this court in the case of Chhotalal Devchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1958] 34 ITR 351 (Bom). He took the view that the firm of New Life Construction Company was duly constituted under a valid partnership deed and the shares of the partners were specified in the partnership deed. According to him, the Income-tax Officer was, therefore, not justified in refusing registration of the firm for the assessment year 1958-59 and not granting renewal for the assessment year 1959-60. He directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the firm for the first year and renewal for the second year. In an appeal by the revenue the Tribunal confirmed the finding of the Appellate Assistan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t entitled to registration. He has, however, fairly conceded before us that both in the order of the Tribunal as well as in the statement of the case it is clearly mentioned that the deed of partnership dated April 5, 1957, is signed by all the five partners including the two partners of Jay Vishin & Co. There is no controversy in the present case that the firm that had sought registration and renewal for the two relevant years was a genuine firm and in fact it has been duly registered for the subsequent years. If the deed of partnership dated April 5, 1957, is signed by all the five partners, as stated in the order of the Tribunal as well as the statement of the case, then merely because they are described as partners of the firm of Jay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the seven individuals the partnership deeds of the two firms which were on the file of the department were relied upon. There was a change in the constitution of the partnership by the death of one of the individuals, and a fresh partnership deed was executed on November 29, 1954, on the basis of which an application for registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act was made for the assessment year 1954-55. Registration was refused for that year on the grounds : (i) that it was not a valid partnership, as it was constituted of two firms and an individual, (ii) that in the books of account of the partnership the profits were credited not to the names of each constituent individual but only to the names of the firms, and (iii) th....