Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1992)40ITD390(Mad.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 3-2-1986 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Madras relating to the assessment year 1980-81.2. The assessee firm which makes and markets biscuits and which was formerly known as Dollar Biscuit Corporation came into existence sometime in 1967. Initially, it would appear, there were seven partners including one Sri K. Nithyanantham and one Sri P. Venkata Subba Rao.With effect from 12-7-1972 other five partners retired. With the result that from the said date the said Nithyananiham and P. Venkata Subba Rao continued the business in partnership. The terms and conditions of this partnership are contained in a deed of partnership dated 12-7-1972.According to this deed, the business was to be carried on at Kathirvedu. Madras-66. Nithyanantham was to contribute Rs. 1,50,000 towards capital of the firm, P. Venkata Subba Rao's share being Rs. 25,000. P. Venkata Subba Rao was to be the production In-charge and he was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Goswami, J.1. The following questions of law are referred to us under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Calcutta : ' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the partnership deed dated February 25, 1953, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding :(a) that Smt. Tribeni Debi was a partner in a representative capacity;(b) that the minor, Sri Gobindratn Bajaj, was not made a full-fledged partner who had been made liable for losses also;(c) that Smt. Tribeni Debi was not a partner in a dual capacity and as such the deed of partnership was not invalid;(d) that Smt. Tribeni Debi and her minor son, Sri Gobindram Bajaj, had not been made partners jointly and that their individual shares were not required to be specified ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-firm constituted under the dee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963]48ITR986(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of three partners. It appears that these three partners entered into an agreement of partnership on 18th April, 1946. The terms and conditions on which they agreed to do partnership business were reduced to writing in a deed executed on April 1, 1947. The partnership was constituted for five years from April 18, 1946. That period of five years expired on 17th April 1951. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1958-59, the relevant previous year being the calendar year 1957. Now, even though the period mentioned in the aforesaid deed of partnership had expired on 17th April, 1951. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1958-59, the relevant previous year being the calendar year 1957. Now, even though the period mentioned in the aforesaid deed of partnership had expired on 17th April, 1951, the partnership business of the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)256
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Four questions have been referred to this Court by this reference under S. 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessees, who are M/s. Dhanji Lalji, Kolhapur and Shri Dhanji Lalji individual. The two questions concerning the assessment of the firm M/s. Dhanji Lalji are as follows : (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the several restrictions contained in the instrument of partnership dated 12th November 1958 rendered the partnership void in law so as not to entitle the Applicant firm to registration under S. 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and upon the true construction of the partnership deed dated 12th November 1958 there was any evidence to support the findings of the Tribunal that : (i) the status of the partners was no more or higher than that of the dignified employees; (ii) it could not be taken that the agency of the partners, inter se as partners of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1977]107ITR395(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Four questions have been referred to this court by this reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessees, who are M/s. Dhanji Lalji, Kolhapur, Shri Dhanji Lalji, individual. The two questions concerning the assessment of the firm, M/s. Dhanji Lalji, are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the several restrictions contained in the instrument of the partnership, dated a November 12, 1958, rendered the partnership void in law so as not to entitled the applicant-firm to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and upon the true construction of the partnership deed dated November 12, 1958, there was any evidence to support the findings of the Tribunal that : (i) it could of the partners was no more or higher than that of the dignified employees : (ii) it could not be taken that the agency of the par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Bom)70; [1986]161ITR806(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN452(Bom)
Kania, J.1. These are four references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The two questions referred to us for our determination are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee carried on business or profession in Goa, Daman and Diu before the appointed day, namely, December 20, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefits of concession contained in paragraphs 9, 16 and 17 of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1964 ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm registered under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1965-66 onwards. The assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67,1967-68 and 1968-69. We are disposing of these references together because, although the questions ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1978]115ITR255(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any capital gains arose to the assessee when he received an amount of Rs. 4,67,529 in terms of the award of the arbitrator ?' 2. The assessee, H. R. Aslot, was a partner in a partnership firm known as Automobile and Agricultural Industries Corporation which was constituted under the partnership deed dated January 31, 1953. Apart from the assessee there were 7 other partners out of whom N. K. Naik was one. One of the terms of the partnership deed was that if any dispute arose between the partners or their representatives, whether during or after the termination of the partnership and whether in relation to the interpretation of the partnership deed or to any act or omission of any party to the dispute or to any act which ought to be done by the parties in dispute or an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1983)34CTR(AP)115; [1983]143ITR1(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. These two R.Cs. are inter-connected. We question referred in this R.C. is 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Commissioner of Income-tax's order under section 263, dated January 30, 1973, for the assessment year 1971-72 is sound in law ?' 2. The relevant facts are the following : G. Vasappa was the karta of an HUF, which was carrying on consisted of G. Vasappa, the father, and his three sons, viz., Sri Tikoji Rao, Sri Satyanarayana and Sri Srinivasa Sekhar. With effect from April 1, 1970, the business was converted into a partnership business with three partners, viz., Vasappa, Tikoji Rao and Satyanarayana. A deed of partnership was drawn up on April 7, 1970. According to this partnership deed, Vasappa was the partner, not in his individual capacity but, as the karta representing the aforementioned HUF, while Tikoji Rao and Satyanarayana were described as working partners. Their shares were fixed in the ratio of 2 : 1 : 1. Registration was applied ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1989]176ITR160(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Three identical questions are referred in these references. The assessee is common. The questions referred are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no legal impediment to a major entering into a contractual relationship with others, respectively, from a point of time when he or she was a minor (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the partnership agreement dated January 4, 1972, did not, in any case, have the effect of making Shashi Rani liable for losses occurring or arising during her minority, though the partnership was stipulated to commence from a point of time when she was a minor (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership was not opposed to any of the provisions of the Excise Act or the rules thereunder and was not vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP67; [1959]36ITR453(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. The question referred to this Court by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, is :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in refusing registration on the ground that the profits were not distributed between the partners'.The reference relates to the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54, the chargeable accounting periods being 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. The facts leading up to the reference may be stated in a few words. The assessee is a firm running a hotel under the name and Style of 'Grand Hotel' in Abid Road, Hyderabad. It has been carrying on this business for the last several years. Originally, it was constituted under a deed of partnership which was registered before the Registrar of Assurances. It was assessed in the status of a 'Registered Firm' for 1949-50, 1950-51 for which the previous years were Fasli years 1357 and 1358.It appears that there was a change in the constitution of the firm on 29-8...
Tag this Judgment!