9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Registration of the firm based on the capacity of a female partner representing an HUF - Interpretation of partnership deed and legal implications of female partner's role - Comparison between acting as karta of an HUF and acting as its agent or representative in a partnership Analysis: The High Court of Patna was presented with a question regarding the registration of a firm involving a female partner representing an HUF. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially rejected the registration claim on the grounds that the female partner could not represent the HUF and that the firm was entering into a partnership illegally due to existing partnerships with the lady partners. However, the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) overturned this decision, stating that the partnership agreement was between three individuals who signed as partners individually, not as representatives of another partnership. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, emphasizing that the female partner was the partner as far as the firm was concerned, not the HUF. The department appealed, arguing that the female partner had joined as a representative of the HUF, citing legal precedents. The High Court clarified the distinction between acting as karta of an HUF and as its agent or representative, noting that while a female cannot be a karta, there is no legal barrier to her representing the family in other capacities. The court referenced a Supreme Court case to support the view that a female member of an HUF can enter into a partnership representing the family's interests. Ultimately, the court deemed the ITO's reasons for rejecting the registration claim invalid and affirmed that the partners named in the deed were indeed the legitimate partners of the firm, ruling in favor of the assessee.
|
