Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1986]157ITR457(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ' the Tribunal ' herein), has referred the following questions for our decision :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that on account of violation by the partners of the firm of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956, a firm valid in law has not come into existence in view of the provisions of Section 23 the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ? 2. If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the benefit of continuation of registration granted to the applicant firm earlier by the Income-tax Officer could be cancelled by him under Section 186 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of assessment year 1967-68 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holdin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1985)49CTR(Raj)348; [1986]157ITR734(Raj)
Bhatnagar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, at the instance of the assessee, M/s. Raj Construction Co., Mount Abu, has made this reference to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the partnership deed dated January 27, 1966, and application in Form No. 11, the Tribunal was correct in law in refusing grant of registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the assessee-firm ?'2. The assessee is a firm styled as 'M/s. Raj Construction Co.', Mount Abu. The assessment year in question is 1967-68. The assessee-firm wasconstituted of three partners, viz., Munshilal, Laxmi Chand and Babu Bhai, under a partnership deed to this effect executed on January 27, 1966. The firm filed an application in Form No. 11 for the aforesaid assessment year for registration under Section 184 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1948)2MLJ528
Yahya Ali, J.1. Under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the assessees concerned in these cases, referred to this Court, the following identical question in both the cases:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee is an ' association of persons' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Income-tax Act is correct in law.The facts in both the cases are also identical and it is convenient to treat them together.2. Several persons formed into a partnership agreeing that all the shops leased in the names of those persons should be run by the partnership. In Referred Case No. 18 there were ten persons who had taken leases of ten arrack shops separately and had constituted themselves into a partnership by deed dated 24th February, 1943, and agreed that the firm should conduct business in the vilasam of K.P.G.B.U.G.M.S.S.A. Mohamad Abdul Karim and Co. In R.C. No. 19, sixteen perso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1948]16ITR412(Mad)
YAHYA ALI, J. - Under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the assessees concerned in these cases, referred to this Court, the following identical question in both the cases :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunals finding that the assessee is an association of persons within the meaning of Section 3 of the Income Tax Act is correct in law.'The facts in both the cases are also identical and it is convenient to treat them together.Several persons formed into a partnership agreeing that all the shops leased in the names of those persons should be run by the partnership. In Referred Case No. 18 there were ten persons who had taken leases of ten attract shops separately and had constituted themselves into a partnership by deed dated 24th February, 1943, and agreed that the firm should conduct business in the vilasam of K. P. G. B. U. G. M. S. S. A. Mohammed Abdul Kareem & Co. In Referred Case No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)2MLJ434
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. These revision petitions are directed against the orders in C.M.A. Nos. 20 and 21 of 1992 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in which the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the appeals and thereby set aside the orders passed by him in I.A. Nos. 652 and 653 of 1992 in O.S. No. 154 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif, Valliyur.2. Short facts are: The revision petitioner has filed O.S. No. 1 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif, Tirunelveli which was later transferred to the Court of District Munsif, Valliyur and re-numbered as O.S. No. 154 of 1992, for dissolution of partnership firm, carried on at Door No. 1, Periyar Bus Stand Buildings, Madurai Road, Tirunelveli Junction and at Stall at 2, platform in the Periyar Bus Stand buildings, Tirunelveli junction, for rendering real accounts of the partnership firm, for appointment of receiver and for interest on the misappropriated funds and for costs, against the respondents herein. He had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)138CTR(Mad)297
ORDERA. R. LAKSHMANAN, J. :The ITO, Headquarters, TDS, and the ITO, Salaries Circle, Madras, have preferred three complaints before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences I) Madras-8, against the respondents herein under ss. 276B and 276B r/w s. 278B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for their failure to deduct income-tax at source from the interest amounts paid to various persons as per s. 194A of the Act. The 1st respondent is the firm and the 2nd respondent is the partner of the 1st respondent firm.2. The 1st respondent-company in EOCC Nos. 232 to 360 of 1987 (Crl. R. C. No. 417 of 1987) furnished its return of income, which was signed by the 2nd respondent, in the form of trading, P&L; a/c and balance sheet for the accounting year 30th Sept., 1982 (asst. yr. 1983-84) on 30th Dec., 1985. In the statement accompanying the return, the firm claims to have paid interest to the extent of Rs. 6,64,565-98 to various parties. Of these, there were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1968]38CompCas117(Cal),[1968]67ITR771(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an Income-tax Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Two questions have been referred to this Court for determination. They are as follows :--'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee was at all entitled to set off the loss of Rs. 11,875 suffered by it on a joint venture against its other income ? (2) If the answer to question (1) be in the affirmative, then whether the assessee was entitled to claim a set off of the whole of the said amount of loss against its profits assessable for the assessment year 1959-60.' 2. The facts giving rise to these two questions must be recorded at the outset. The assessee is Ganga Metal Refining Company (Private) Limited of 43, Strand Road, Calcutta. The status of the assessee is recorded as 'company'. It is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The year of assessment is 1959-60. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 11,875 as its share of loss in a joint ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal156
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J.1. This is an application to set aside an award. The sons of One Hari Narain Paul deceased used to carry on two businesses, one business in Homoepathic medicines known as Paul and Co. at 82, Clive Street and another in paper known as Hari Narain Paul and Co., at 103, Old China Bazar Street. These businesses were carried on in co-partnership. In August 1952, there was a dissolution of partnership and a new partnership agreement was entered into between three of the sons of Hari Narain, namely, Pannalal, Chunnial and Luxmi Narain, and the legal representatives of Jiban Chandra, another son of Hari Narain, who was dead. On 13-12-1955 the heirs of Jiban Chandra instituted a suit in this court for dissolution of partnership and accounts against the said three sons of Hari Narain. In the said suit the plaintiffs made an application for the appointment of Receiver. Thereupon, the defendants made an application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act for stay of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal429
P.B. Mukharji, J 1. This is an Income-tax Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act. Two questions have been referred to this Court for determination. They are as follows :--'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee was at all entitled to set off the loss of Rs. 11,875 suffered by it on a joint venture against its other Income? (2) If the answer to question (1) be in the affirmative, then whether the assessee was entitled to claim a set off of the whole of tide said amount of loss against its profits assessable for the assessment year 1959-60.' 2. The facts giving rise to these two questions must be recorded at the outset. The assessee is Ganga Metal Refining Company (Private) Limited of 43, Strand Road, Calcutta. The status of the assessee is recorded as 'Company'. It is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The year of assessment is 1959-60. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 11,875/- as its share of loss in a Joint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1985)46CTR(Cal)340,[1985]155ITR377(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of an order of the ITO under Section 184 of the I.T. Act, 1961, refusing to register Janata Medical Stores, the assessee, as a firm under Section 185 of the said Act for the assessment year 1969-70, the corresponding previous year being that ending on October 21, 1968. On consideration of the provisions of the deed of partnership dated January 25, 1968, under which the firm was constituted, the ITO came to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine.2. On appeal by the assessee, the AAC noted that all the partners of the assessee were shown as partners in the bank. They were also authorised to operate the account of the partnership. He also took into account that the partnership was registered with the Registrar of Firms and the Registrar of Assurances and came to the conclusion that the partnership was genuine and directed the ITO to grant registration.3. On a further appeal by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on a conside...
Tag this Judgment!