Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC4389; [1998]229ITR458(SC); JT1997(10)SC1; (1998)2SCC49; [1997]Supp6SCR331
Suhas C. Sen, J.1. The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal to the Orissa High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission paid by the assessee-firm to Sri Rashiklal P. Rathor (individual) is allowable under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as a deduction while computing the business income of the assessee.' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on a number of businesses including sale and purchase of various commodities as well as mining. The partners of the firm were :(1) Popatlal Devram(2) Jayantilal Jagmal(3) Pragji Devram(4) Ratilal Odhayji(5) Rashiklal P. Rathor3. Popatlal is Rashiklal's father. On 1.4.1967, there was an oral partition of the share of Popatlal in the firm amongst Popatlal, his wife and his two sons including Rashiklal. The assets of Rashiklal continued to be invested in the partnership firm. Rashiklal was Karta of a smaller HUF. On 17.10.1978...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1988)1GLR11; [1988]171ITR549(Guj)
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Should the application for recording of changes in the constitution of a firm be submitted within a specified time-limit and should the same be submitted in person and not by post The aforesaid question has arisen in the context of the facts narrated hereinbelow. 2. The petitioner-firm started its business some time in the year 1946. The firm got itself registered with the Registrar of Firms on March 10, 1955. Thereafter, a partner, Balvantbhai Dahyabhai Modi, died on May 5, 1976. Thus, there was a change in the constitution of the firm. But the same was not recorded in the register of firms by the Registrar of Firms. Again, another partner, Narshibhai Chandulal Nanavati, retired from the firm on June 27, 1986. This change in the constitution of the firm was also not got recorded with the Registrar of Firms. However, the registration of the firm as originally recorded on March 10, 1955, continued. 3. The petitioner-firm submitted an application in June, 1986, by regis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2000]246ITR784(Guj)
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B, has referred the following three questions for our opinion, arising out of I.T.A. No. 394/Ahd of 1982, relating to the assessment year 1979-80. '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to registration of the firm under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Laxmichand Hirjibhai v. CIT [1981] 128 ITR 747 was not applicable to the assessee's case though the assessment of the partners were completed when the Commissioner of Income-tax passed his order ?' 2. The firs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2409/2014 & IA Nos. 15113/2014, 15115/2014, 20455/2014, 21521/2014, 21824/2014, 2003/2015, 4008/2015, 4217-4218/2015, 4291/2015, 7366/2015 SARLA BALA SINHA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Avneesh Garg, Advocate with Mr. Ishan Khanna, Advocate. versus SARAT CHANDRA SINHA & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Vipul Gupta, Advocate for defendant No.1 with defendant in person. Mr. Dipak K. Nag, Advocate with Ms. Apurva Upmanyu, Advocate for defendants No.2, 4 and 5. Date of Decision:24. h April, 2015 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) I.A. No.21520/2014 1. Present application has been filed by defendant No.1 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.2. Mr. Vipul Gupta, learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that the present plaint is barred by limitation. He states that plaintiff has sought a direction to pay 50% share of profits since 14 th April, 2006 and a declaration that the partnership ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2006Bom76; 2006(1)ALLMR417; 2006(1)BomCR36
Mohite R.S., J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 139 of 1987 filed in the Court of III Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Solapur impugns a judgement and order dated 14.2.1991 passed by the III Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Solapur dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs. By the impugned judgment and order the plaintiff's suit was dismissed as not maintainable for want of registration of the firm 'M/s. Asian Gas Agency'. The trial Court concluded that the suit was barred by provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.2. The case of the plaintiff as per his averments in the plaint was briefly as follows:That the plaintiff and the defendant were partners of the firm named 'M/ s. Asian Gas Agency'. There were five other partners of the firm. A partnership deed was executed by and between seven partners on 22.4.1984. The defendant had been conferred an agency by Hindustan Petroleum Limited. The defendant however, did not h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1994Guj56; (1992)2GLR493
ORDERA.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Narol on 30th June 1986 below the application at Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 1986 is under challenge in this Appeal from Order. Thereby the learned Trial Judge was pleased to reject the present appellant's application for interim injunction and to vacate the ad interim injunction granted earlier.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal from order move in a narrow compass. The present appellant claims to be a partner in a partnership firm in the name and style of Shri Nilkanth Builders (the 'firm' for convenience). It was started from 1st January 1978 and it was dissolved on 1st January 1986. Under the deed of dissolution, the present appellant claims to have acquired the right to recover the debt recoverable by the firm. It took contract to construct 12 houses on subplots Nos. 8 to 11 of one Sardar Smruti Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (the 'Society' for convenience). The present respondent had ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)85TTJ(Mum.)821
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Mumbai, dt. 28th Feb., 2001, for the asst. yr. 1998-99. The assessee is a company belonging to the Mafatlal Group. The main objects of the company are to carry on the business of an investment company and to invest in and acquire and hold, sell or otherwise deal in shares, stocks, debentures, debenture-stocks, bonds, units, obligation and securities issued or guaranteed by Indian or foreign Governments, States, Dominion, Sovereigns, Municipalities or public authorities or bodies or any company corporation, forum or person whether incorporated or established in India or elsewhere. Thus, the main object clause of the company is to carry on business of finance and investments.2. The first three grounds of appeal taken up by the assessee pertain to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,74,12,682. The AO observed that the assessee-company has not given out any new finances during the accounting year relevant to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein who are respectively defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 25177/07 before the learned XXVIIIth Addl City Civil Judge, (CCH No. 29), Mayohall, Bangalore, (Hereinafter referred to as 'The learned Judge') has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 21.11.2007 passed in the said case insofar as it relates to rejecting of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC by these petitioner - defendants seeking rejection of the plaint in the said case.2. Stated in brie the facts leading to this revision petition are:Respondent No. 1 herein viz., M/s. R.S. Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, filed the said suit against both the petitioners 1 and 2 and one Mr. N. Madhusudhan Reddy, respectively as defendant Nos. 1 to 3 seeking the relief of specific performance of contract dated 10.3.2006 entered into between the petitioner-defendants and the respondent-plaintiffs 1 and 2. After the petitioner-defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)8SOT532(Mum.)
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds which are as under : "1(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer for loss of Rs. 11,40,72,556 on sale of 22,00,000 shares of NOCIL by the appellant treating the impugned transaction as sham.(b) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the loss incurred by the appellant on sale of shares of NOCIL was genuine and is supported by sufficient materials and evidences on record.(c) In reaching to the conclusion and confirming such addition, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) omitted to consider relevant factors, considerations, principles and evidences while he was overwhelmed, influenced and prejudiced by irrelevant considerations and factors.2.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2008Kant178; ILR2008KAR3928; 2008(6)KarLJ136; 2008(4)KCCR2234; 2008(5)AIRKarR465; AIR2008Kar178
ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein who are respectively defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 25177/07 before the learned XXVIIP Addl. City Civil Judge, (CCH No. 29), Mayohall, Bangalore, (Hereinafter referred to as 'The learned Judge') has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 21.11.2007 passed in the said case insofar as it relates to rejecting of the application filed under Order VII Rule (11)(d) of CPC by these petitioner- defendants seeking rejection of the plaint in the said case.2. Stated in brief, the facts leading to this revision petition are:Respondent No. 1 herein viz., M/s. R.S. Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, filed the said suit against both the petitioners 1 and 2 and one Mr. N. Madhusudhan Reddy, respectively as defendant Nos. 1 to 3 seeking the relief of specific performance of contract dated 10.3.2006 entered into between the petitioner-defendants and the respondent-plaintiffs 1 and 2. After the petitioner-defenda...
Tag this Judgment!