Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1975]100ITR246(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The assessee is Messrs. Raghavji Anandji & Co. We are concerned with the assessment year 1959-60, the corresponding previous year being S. Y. 2014.3. Messrs. Raghavji Anandji & Co. is, as per the statement of the case, an old business, but it is not necessary to refer to its history earlier than 10th December, 1945. Prior to that date it consisted of nine partner, viz., Karsondas Mulji Purshottam Mulji, Haridas Mulji, Ratansey Lalji, Naranji Vallabhdas, Narottam Vallabhdas, Virji Vallabhdas, Nensey Goculdas and Bhagwandas Mathuradas. From that date one Vandravan Purshottam joined as a partner. Thereafter, there were changes in the constitution of the firm by partnership deeds dated 20th March 1950, and 27th February 1952, but they are not relevant for purpose of this reference. On 19th February, 1954, Vandravan PUrshottam was allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1587; [1964]1SCR995
Das Gupta, J. 1. The respondent a partnership firm carrying on business as commission agents in the town of Khanna in Punjab brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen against the appellant firm for recovery of Rs. 17,615/10/- claimed to be due to it on account of the purchases and sales made on behalf of the appellant firm. Between December 1946 and February 3, 1947, 7600 bags of cotton seeds were, according to the plaint purchased by the respondent on behalf of the appellant firm at various rates, out of which 5300 bags are said to have been sold by it on behalf of the appellant firm between the dates of January 2, 1947 and February 3, 1947. Thus, on February 3, 1947, 2300 bags of cotton-seeds were left on its hands. In May 1947 the market for cotton-seeds was falling and so the respondent firm asked the appellant either to remove the goods within 48 hours on payment of the full price or pay something more by way of margin and informed them that otherwise the goods would be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1983]142ITR16(Mad)
1. This tax revision case arises under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (referred to as 'the act' in this judgment). There was originally a partnership firm styled K.M.S. Mallayan Chettiar and Brothers in Theni. The firm consisted of seven partners. Mallayan Chettiar died on July 4, 1972. Thereupon, the firm was reconstituted under the name and style, K.M.S. Subbiah Chettiar and Brothers,. The reconstituted firm has 17 partners. On September 17, 1974 pursuant to its reconstitution the reconstituted firm applied for registration to the Agrl. ITO Theni, for the registration of the firm under s. 27 of the Act. The application was filed in September, 1974. In and by his proceedings GIR 48(m) Upm/74-75, dated December 20, 1974 the Agrl, ITO Theni, passed an order directing the registration of the firm with effect from the assessment year 1974-75. For the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 renewal of registration was also granted to the firm. On the very same date, the said Agrl. ITO ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1938]6ITR336(All)
This is a statement of a case by the Commissioner of Income Tax, C.P. and U.P., under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The reference was made at the instance of Sardar Bahadur Dr. Sir Sundar Singh Majithia, C.I.E. who is the head of an undivided Hindu family consisting of himself and his three sons.The Commissioner states that 'the assessee enjoys large income from property, has deposits in banks and shares in companies, does money and grain-lending business and is interested in a sugar factory styled as the Saraiya Sugar Factory.' For several years Sir Sundar Singh was also a member of the Executive Council of the Punjab Government and drew a salary in that capacity. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1932-33 and the accounting year ended with the 30th September 1931. The members of his family are Jats of the Sher Gill tribe in the Amritsar district in the Punjab and they are, as we have already said, an undivided Hindu family. In previous years the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1971]79ITR306(AP)
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This is a reference made to this court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), hereinafter called the ' Act ', and raises the following three questions :' (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to renewal of registration for the assessment year 1961-62 ? (2) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 33B of the Act to set aside the order granting registration in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (3) Whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity by the Commissioner to present his defence ' 2. The facts out of which these questions arise may briefly be mentioned.3. The assessee is a firm known as Messrs. Addepalli Nageswara Rao & Brothers, Palakole, which consists of three major partners and one minor ; Nageswara Rao and his two brothers, Kasiviswanadham and Mareswara Rao, are the major partners; and Kamaraju, son of Nageswara Rao, is a minor. The firm was cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD674
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Ms. Arshia Khatoon representing Smt. Sesharajyam and Mr. M.V. Nagaraj representing Mr. Rajalingam, the Counsel representing both the parties in the CRP.2. The CRP is filed against an order dated 26-7-1999 made in IA No. 9 of 1999 in OS No. 504 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.3. The revision petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit filed an application under Order XXIII, Rule 1 C.PC to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit. The Court below by an order dated 26-7-1999 had allowed the application in part granting permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit, but refusing liberty to file a fresh suit. Therevision petitioner aggrieved by the said order had preferred the present CRP.4. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The revision petitioner-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 29,531.48 ps., and the registration certificate of the firm was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1972Mad86
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed by him for a declaration that the decree dated 25-3-1952 in C.S. No. 173 of 1950 on the file of this court was void as far as the plaintiff was concerned on the ground that the said decree had been obtained by fraud and suppression of the unregistered partnership agreement between the defendants and for restraining the first defendants and for restraining the first defendant from executing the said decree. or in the alternative for declaring the transfers of the funds of the second defendant made by the first defendant in his accounts as void and directing the first defendant to adjust the decree amount from the moneys standing to the credit of the second defendant and his wife with the firm of Kaka Mohammed Ghouse and company. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for enforcement of the indemnity clause in the agreement executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff and for costs.2. The case of the plaintiff as set ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1433; 2004(1)ARBLR141(SC); 2004(2)AWC949(SC); (2004)2CompLJ419(SC); 2004(2)CTC208; JT2004(2)SC352; 2004(3)MhLj592; 2004MPLJ266(SC); (2004)137PLR526; 2004(1)SCALE29
ORDER1. Leave granted in both the SLPs.2. The dispute is among 12 persons who are, or are alleged to be, or claim to be partners in the firm M/s Ashok Traders, the respondent No. 1. These/12 private parties to the litigation can be grouped into three, for the sake of convenience. Gurumukh Das Saluja, Sanjay Chawla and Ajay Arora shall be collectively referred to as Group 'A'. Bhagwati Prasad Kulhara, Badri Prasad Jaiswal and Harprasad Jaiswal shall be referred to as Group 'B'. Rajesh Jaiswal, Ram Sewak Sharma, Baljeet Singh Bhatia, Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, Anil Kumar Shrivastava and Sushil Kumar Shrivastava shall be referred to as Group 'C'.3. M/s. Ashok Traders are in liquor trade. In the Deed of Partnership entered into on 27.2.2002 there were 7 partners including Bhagwati Prasad Kulhara and 6 others. The partnership firm was registered with Registrar of Firms. Six partners (i.e. other than Bhagwati Prasad Kulhara) retired from the partnership and a new partnership came to be constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1957Raj326
Modi, J. 1. This is a petition by Bansilal on behalf of Shri Ekling Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Gangapur, under Sub-section 2 of Section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act.2. The material facts are these. The asses-see is a partnership firm carrying on the business of ginning and pressing of cotton at Gangapur, district Bhilwara. The Income-tax Officer, Udaipur, (Ward A) by his order dated the 31st July, 1953. assessed the firm to income-tax for the assessment year 1951-52, the relevant accounting period being the year ending on the 30th June, 1950. The assesses had made an application to the Income-tax Officer for registration of the firm and submitted a deed of partnership dated the 12th September, 1950, along with certain other documents executed between the partners in sup-port of the application.The deed showed that the firm as on 12-9-1940 consisted of nine partners including Kashiram. father of the petitioner Bansilal, and Gauri-shanker and Shankerlal and six others. Their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1965Mad424; [1965]56ITR569(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.(1) The assessee is a firm of four partners. It was constituted under an instrument dated 2-9-1954. It closed its books for the period ending 30-8-1955. Treating that period as the previous year, it sought registration and applied therefor on 16-11-1955. The registration was sought in respect of the assessment year 1956-57. The Income-tax Officer held that the application was out to time, being beyond the period specified by Rule 2. The registration was accordingly refused. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, contending that the Income-tax Officer had a discretion which he could exercise in favour of the assessee if the application was filed out of time, which discretion he had failed to exercise. It was also claimed that in so far as the relevant rule prescribes different time limits for applications under S. 26-A, it offends the equal protection clause Art. 14 of the Constitution. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal; but ...
Tag this Judgment!