9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm. In the partnership deed dated 28-7-1977 the ratio of the sharing of the profits by the partners has been given, but there is no clause with regard to the sharing of the losses. Before the ITO the assessee filed a deed of agreement dated 27-3-1980 wherein the ratio of sharing the losses was shown. The ITO did not accept the agreement. He held that as the partnership deed dated 28-7-1977 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t help the assessee; whereas the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Best Automobiles [1979] 117 ITR 877 is against the assessee. Once the sharing of the losses is not specified the assessee is not entitled for registration. With regard to the agreement dated 27-3-1980 he submitted that it has been executed after the accounting year. Hence, it cannot be taken into account for these two ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omobiles' case, the Kerala High Court has, after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mandyala Govindu Co. held that there must be specification of shares in the losses in the instrument of partnership. In the absence of specification of shares in the losses registration cannot be granted. Similar view was taken by the Kerala High Court in United Hardwares v. CIT [1974] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 17-9-1955. The Supreme Court held that the assessee is not entitled for registration as there is no specification of the shares of the partners in the partnership deed dated 31-3-1949. The contention that the rectification deed dated 17-9-1955 clarifies the position and registration should be granted was not accepted. The above ratio equally applies to the instant case. Thus, the deed of agreem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
