9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether the firm is entitled to registration under the Act if all divisible profits are not divided among the partners? Analysis: The case involved a firm seeking registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1956-57. The firm, with two partners having equal shares, applied for registration, but the department rejected it. The rejection was based on two grounds: first, not all divisible profits were divided between partners, and second, a portion of profits was allocated to a charity account. The assessing authority, appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the rejection, emphasizing that all divisible profits must be wholly divided between partners for registration. The Tribunal referred the question to the High Court for opinion under section 66(1) of the Act. The key contention was whether carrying forward a portion of profits without immediate distribution would lead to rejection of registration. Section 26A outlines the requirements for firm registration, mandating that profits of the business in the previous year must be divided or credited among partners as per the partnership agreement. The Court highlighted that failure to allocate divisible profits to partners as per the partnership terms would render the firm ineligible for registration. The partnership deed in question explicitly stated that all profits must be divided equally between partners, leaving no room for carrying forward any portion of profits. The Court rejected the argument that divisible profits could be divided at a later date, citing precedents that emphasized strict adherence to the partnership terms for registration eligibility. Rulings from the Kerala High Court and Nagpur High Court supported the stance that all divisible profits must be wholly divided for registration under section 26A. The Court concluded that failure to comply strictly with the law's requirements, including immediate division of profits as per the partnership agreement, would result in denial of registration. In light of the above analysis, the High Court ruled in favor of the department and against the assessee, emphasizing the importance of full compliance with the statutory provisions for firm registration. No costs were awarded in the case.
|
