Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1984Bom47
Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the validity of sub-section (5) of S. 73-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) has been called in question.2. Section 73-A of the Act was inserted in the Act by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (second Amendment ) Act, 1969 (Act No. XXVII of 1969), which came into force on July 1, 1971 . Sub-section (5) of S. 73-A runs as under:'(5) No person shall be , or shall continue to be a designated officer of any society of any of the categories referred to in sub-section (2) for a consecutive period of more than six years, and at the expiration of that period any such person shall appointed as a designated officer, until a period of three years has elapsed after the expiry of the aforesaid period of six years. Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-section - in calculating the consecutive period of six years in office, any period for which the person concerned may ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1974]33STC174(Raj); 1973()WLN314
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. M/s. Oriental Engineering Company, Jaipur, has made two applications, one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the other under Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, against the order of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, dated 24th May, 1967, and they can be conveniently disposed of together.2. The petitioner is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and has been carrying on the business of selling diesel engines, generators, electric motors, pumps, bearings, etc., at Jaipur. It is registered as a dealer both under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. On 12th July, 1957, the petitioner applied to be registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act and a certificate was issued to it in respect of agricultural machinery parts for resale only. On 6th August, 1962, Inspector Baijal noticed that the certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1977]109ITR370(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the five assessment years being 1965-66 to 1969-70.2. The assessee-petitioner is a firm constituted under the Indian Partnership Act of 1932. For the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56, the firm was accorded registration under the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922, but thereafter registration was refused. Certain sister concerns of the assessee-firm were treated not to be genuine and the assessee-firm itself got entangled in various proceedings of assessment, penalty, et cetera. Thereupon, with a view to bringing about a settlement, the assessee approached the Director of Inspection (Investigation) of the Central Board of Direct taxes. According to the assessee, its application was examined at great length with reference to the books of account with particular e...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC757; (1988)67CTR(SC)43; [1988]169ITR761(SC); JT1987(4)SC349; 1987(2)SCALE1078; 1988Supp(1)SCC193; 1988(Supp)SCC193; [1988]1SCR917
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. By this judgment we will dispose of two appeals first one at the instance of the assessee and second one at the instance of the revenue - but both these appeals deal with one common situation namely the position of the registered firm during the assessment year if one of the partners dies or retires. Civil Appeal No. 1792(NT) of 1974 is an appeal by the assessee from the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated 22nd December, 1972 answering the following question referred to it under Section 256(1), Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the assessment year 1965-66 in favour of the revenue and in the negative: -Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that for the period covered by the old Constitution the income was assessable in the hands of the assessee as a registered firm?2. For the assessment year 1965-66 the relevant previous year commenced on 17th November, 1963 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1963]49ITR698(Cal)
G. K. MITTER J. - This reference under section 66(1) of the Act is at the instance of the assessee, a firm which was denied registration under section 26A for the period January 1, 1953, to July 1, 1953.Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. was a firm composed of eight partners under a written agreement of November 14, 1949. There was a change in the constitution of the partnership in the year 1953, when two of the partners retired and a new partner was taken in. This was recorded in writing by a document styled 'supplementary deed of partnership' bearing date July 2, 1953, executed by six out of eight partners who did not retire and the new partner who taken in. As the rights of the parties are regulated by these two documents it is necessary to note the relevant provisions thereof. The following are the relevant clauses of the deed of 1949 :'Clause 2 :- The partnership business shall be carried on as long as the senior partners or a majority of them so desire provided that if any partner shall be de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007ACJ203; 2007(4)ARBLR434(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. By this application the applicant seeks to appoint independent Abitral Tribunal under Sections 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act').2. It is averred by the applicant that on December 31, 2003 a partnership deed was executed by the applicant and the respondent for the purpose of running bore-well digging business Clause 13 of the said deed that related to Arbitration, reads as under:That any dispute or difference which may arise between the partners or between their representatives with regard to the constitution, meaning, effect of this deed or any part or respecting account, profit and loss of the business or right and liabilities of partner under this deed or on the dissolution or winding up of the business or ay other matter relating to the partnership profession shall be referred to arbitration and all the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act shall apply.3. After having borrowed loan from City Corporation Finance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1988)27ITD331(Kol.)
The entire matter arising form the dispute between the deceased L and the remaining partners and the subsequent expulsion from the partnership firm was subjudice before the High Court. The High Court issued an interim injunction restraining the deceased L from asserting or representing or even holding himself as a partner of the assessee-firm. Considering these facts, as at the end of the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1982-83 the deceased L continued to remain as a partner. Accordingly, in terms of rule 24 read with rule 22(5), it was necessary for all the six partners to sign personally the declaration in Form No. 12. The Commissioner was, therefore, justified in invoking the provisions of section 263.Section 184(7), as per the current statutory provision, stands on the statute book only till 31-3-1989. Further, in the related partnership deed there was a specific clause that any partner who habitually misconducts himself or the business of the firm could be expelled...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1989AP55
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J. 1. The first petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of petitioners 2 to 5 as partners. They sought for registration of the firm under Section 58(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Act LX of 1932) (for short 'the Act') with the name 'the South India Textiles' to do business at Secunderabad as distributors of Madras Coats Limited situated at Ambasamudram, Tamilnadu State. The application was returned with a direction to delete the word 'India' from the name of the firm stating that the word 'India' is prohibited under the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Emblems Act'). Subsequently they made a representation to the First respondent State Government on May, 2, 1979 seeking permission to use the name 'the South India Textiles' By the impugned order it was negatived. Assailing the legality thereof, the writ petition has been filed.2. The contention of the petitioner which merits acceptance is that ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1974]96ITR625(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has made this reference and stated a case under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'theAct'), and the following question has been asked to be answered by us : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal upholding refusal of the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the assessee under Section 185(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that no genuine partnership was brought into existence, is justified in law ?'2. Jammula Venkataswamy and his four sons constituted a Hindu undivided family of which the father was the karta. This Hindu undivided family carried on business in iron and hardware in the name and style of 'Jammula Venkataswamy & Sons' at Berhampur in the district of Ganjam. On September 19, 1964, there was a partition of the family assets and the claim made under Section 171 of the Act has been duly accep...
Tag this Judgment!