1985 (3) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case cls. 6, 16 and 24 are gone through, it cannot be said that the profit sharing ratio is not specified. He also submitted that capital contribution by both the partners was absolutely equal and equal was the division of profit, as indicated by their respective capital accounts and the balance-sheet filed before me, which were also before the two lower authorities. He mainly relied on the cases of Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 485 (SC), CIT vs. Krishna Mining Co. (1980) 15 CTR (AP) 203 : (1980) 122 ITR 362 (AP), Alankar Jewellers vs. CIT (1979) 8 CTR (Pat) 104 : (1979) 116 ITR 89 (Pat) and Kyalasa Sarabhaiah vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 219 (SC), against which the ld. Departmental Representative besides relying on the orders of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hen conduct of the assessee as well by contributing absolutely equal capital which is in a sum Rs. 18,860 by both the partners Vinod Kumar and Pardeep Kumar and division of profit in equal share ratio, i.e., Rs. 13,249.85 for each of the two partners and filing of Form 11 indicating the profit sharing ratio, half and half, supports the contention of the assessee in toto. In the case of Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai, their Lordship of the Supreme Court held that:   ".................. reading the partnership deed as a whole and in the context of the relevant circumstances of the case, there was specification of the individual shares of the partners in the profits within the meaning of s. 26A and the firm was entitled registration for 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....partnership deed as a whole or from the proved facts and circumstances indicated in the application for registration, books of account and the conduct of the partners." Then, the case of Alankar Jewelleres further supports the contention of the assessee as their Lordships of the Patna High Court observed that the 'application' includes documents which are required to be enclosed therewith and the partnership deed. It is also observed by their Lordships in the said case that- ".......It is mandatory on the part of the ITO to intimate the firm to rectify the defect in the application for grant of registration and an opportunity should be given to the firm to rectify such defect within one month from the date of such application." No ....