Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H320; [1977]110ITR170(P& H)
M.R. Sharma, J. 1. A copy of the partnership deed dated May 16, 1964, Annexure 'A' shows that the assessee-firm had the following partners with their respective shares denoted against (heir Dames:-- Nandlal party of first part 7/40Sohanlal party of second part 7/40Mukandlal party of third part 7/40Hardial party of fourth part 7/40Ramlal party of fifth part 5/40Harbanslal party of sixth part 7/40 2. on Oct. 20, 1967, Shri Mukand Lalone of the partners died. A new partnershipdeed dated Oct. 26, 1967, was executedwhereby Rajinder Kumar, the minor son ofthe deceased partner Sh. Mukand Lal, wasadmitted to the benefits of the partnershipwith effect from Oct. 21, 1967. The assessee-firm filed two returns for the period April13, 1967 to Oct. 20, 1967, and Oct. 21, 1967,to April 12, 1968. In the new partnershipdeed, it has been specifically provided thatthe death of any of the partners shall notdissolve the partnership and either the legalheir or the nominee of the deceased partnershall take hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3434; 2005(4)AWC3869N(SC); IV(2005)BC13(SC); 2006(1)BomCR760; 2005(4)CTC408; [2006(2)JCR155(SC)]; JT2005(8)SC58; 2005(4)KLT264(SC); (2005)7SCC308
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The unsuccessful appellant in S.B. Civil Execution First Appeal No. 2 of 1998 before the High Court of Rajasthan is the appellant before us by special leave. The appeal is preferred against the judgment and final order dated 12.11.2003 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Execution First Appeal No. 2 of 1998 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that a decree for Rs. 37,255.07 was passed against the State of Rajasthan on 6.6.1970 in respect of the construction work of irrigation department under Arbitration Act in case No. 4 of 1969 entitled Sharma & Co. v. State of Rajasthan. The said company filed execution and recovered Rs. 37,592.57. As against the said amount, two securities were furnished, one by Shri Gurbachan Singh for Rs. 2927.57 and another by Smt. Kamla for Rs. 37,592.57. Along with the aforesaid surety bonds, House No. 79B Block Sri Ganganagar was also furnished again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1981)25CTR(Del)207; ILR1981Delhi40; [1982]136ITR379(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) These two references can be disposed of by a common judgment as there is a common question of law. In Itr 1/73 the assessed is a firm carried on in the name and style of M/s. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar, Delhi. It had four partners, Shri Sant Lal, Shri Hukam Chaad, Smt. Prem Wati and Smt. Gaitri Devi. On 13-7-1968 Shri Sant Lal expired. The original partnership deed contained no provision that the death of any partner would not dissolve the firm audit was common ground at the various stages that when Sant Lal died on 13-7-1968 there was a dissolution of the firm of four partners referred to above. The firm books of account were closed on that date. Subsequently a partnership deed was executed on 16-7-1968 under which the three other erstwhile partners constituted a partnership With Arvind Kumar, a grandson of Shri Sant Lal and this partnership continue to carry on the business previously carried on by the firm of four partners. Shri Sant Lal had 30% share in the firm ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1981Ker36
Khalid, J.1. Defendants 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are the appellants in this appeal. Original 1st defendant died pending suit. 4th defendant is his mother, 5th defendant his wife and defendants 6 and 7 his minor children. The suit from which this appeal arises was filed to recover amounts due to the plaintiff on 5 promissory notes. The plaintiff's case was that the amounts as per the promissory notes were taken for the purpose of a partnership firm, K. M. S. Bus Service by name run by defendants 1, 2 and 3 of which the 1st defendant was the Managing Partner. Four promissory notes were executed by the 1st defendant and the 5th promissory note by defendants 1 and 2. Defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and in any case the partnership firm cannot be made liable for the promissory note amounts. The trial court held that the plea of limitation was not available to the defendants since there was an acknowledgment of the liability as per the promissory notes by defendants 1, 2 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj85; (1990)1GLR297
R.A. Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to quash and set aside the notice of disconnection of the petitioner's telephone No. 445764 and also wants that Rules 421 and 443 of Indian Telegraphs Rules, 1951 be struck down as violative of the principle of natural justice. 2. The petitioner is a partner of M/s. Sukan Chemicals. That partnership firm is a subscriber of other telephones namely 830532 and 830533. In respect of both these telephones, unpaid outstanding dues are Rs.69335 / - as per telephone bills dated 01 - 11 -1988 and 01-01-1989. Since these amounts were not paid in spite of sufficient time having been granted to make the payment, both these telephones of the firm were disconnected on 12-12-1988. 3. Thereafter a notice was issued to the firm on 06-01-1989. A similar notice dated 16-01-1989 was addressed to the petitioner partner by name and therein it was stated that for the nonpayment of the telephone dues of the firm, the personal telephone of the petitioner is al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1965Mad297; [1965]56ITR463(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.(1) The question that has been referred to us is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee that it was entitled to write off Rs. 20,598/- as a bad debt under Section 10(2)(xi) of the Act?'(2) The assess is a partnership which was constituted under a deed dated the 19th October, 1952, with five partners. The business of the firm is that of dealing in kuppas, cotton, yarn and cloth. The firm supplied cotton to Aron Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited and on that account a sum of Rs. 20,598/- was owing to the assessee. During the assessment year ending 14-11-1955, the assessee wrote off this amount as irrecoverable. In the assessment for the year 1956-57, the claim to treat this sum as a bad debt in the computation of the income was negatived by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that it had been prematurely written off. In the following assessment year, the claim was not apparently raised...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 51Ind.Cas.597
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits to recover money, one on a hand-note and the other on a hath chitta. In the lower Court four suits were tried together. Appeals have been preferred against the decrees in two only, Suit No. 53 of 1914 corresponding to Appeal No. 138 of 1916 and Suit No. 243 of 1914 corresponding to Appeal No. 140 of 1916.2. It appears that one Bhuban Mohan had two Karbars, one for fuel wood at Munshigunge, and another for rice and other articles at Kalibazar. He died in Kartick 1306 (November 1899) leaving five sons, viz., Nilratan, Amullya, Sattya Charan, Fatik arid Sanyasi Charan. The last two were minors, and Nilratan, the eldest brother, was appointed 1890. The ancestral Karbars, viz' the Munshigunge and the Kalibazar business were carried on, on behalf of the joint family, by Nilratan as Karta, assisted by the other two adult brothers. A new Karbar in rice at Orphangunge was started after the death of Bhuban Mohan and carried on on behalf of the joint fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1985J& K50
Bhat, J. 1. In a suit pertaining to partnership concern known as Messrs Kingsway, Vir Marg, Jammu a learned single Judge of this Court (Kotwal J.) has passed an order on 30-5-1983 in an application for appointment of a Receiver moved by the plaintiff. The learned single Judge has directed the defendants respondents herein to furnish security in the amount of Rs. l,50,000/- to the effect that in case the plaintiff succeeds in the suit the surety shall be liable to pay to him any amount up to the maximum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- failing which the deputy registrar was directed to attach the goods lying in the shop and other godowns of the firm to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- and after putting the goods on sale, the sale proceeds were ordered to be deposited in some Bank in the name of the Dy. Registrar, High Court. The amount was to be distributed in accordance with the decree that would eventually be passed finally in the suit. 2. This aforesaid direction proceeded on the assumption that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1/30 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF JULY, 2018 PRESENT THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HONBLE MRS JUSTICE S SUJATHA I.T.A.No.884/2007 c/w I.T.A.No.60/2015 ITA No.884/2007 BETWEEN1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, ATTAVARA MANGALORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1 UDUPI2 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND M/S PRAKASH ELECTRIC COMPANY OPPOSITE TO POST OFFICE AMBALAPADI,UDUPI (BY SRI CHYTHANYA, ADVOCATE) .. RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT1961ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED1807-2007 PASSED IN ITA NO.179/BANG/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR20002001, PRAYING TO: ITA No.884/2007 c/w ITA No.60/2015 Date of Order:23. 07-2018. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s Prakash Electric Company 2/30 I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH-A IN ITA NO.179/BANG/2007 DATED1807-2007 & CONFIRM THE ORDER PAS...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)(121)ECC173
1. The issue involved in this case is whether outgoing partners are liable to pay excise duty assessed against a registered partnership firm, which was dissolved. Having regard to the importance and wide repercussions of the question involved the appeal has been placed for disposal before this Larger Bench.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh had earlier, by order made in Writ Petition No. 2239/2002 dated 20.2.2002, remanded the matter, after quashing the order passed by the Commissioner on 6.5.2002, with a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Commissioner and file their reply to the show cause notice dated 24.3.2003. Thereafter, fresh adjudication order was made by the Commissioner on 31.1.2004, confirming central excise duty demand of Rs. 46,053,866/- and ordering its recovery from the original notice No. (1), which is the present appellant No. (1). Penalty of like amount was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the said assessees and in...
Tag this Judgment!