9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnership executed on January 10, 1948, a firm was constituted for the purpose of carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Ganeshi Lal Lakshmi Narain Lal. The members of the firm were Muneshwar Prasad and Satchidanand, and one Om Kumar, a minor, was admitted to the benefits of partnership. The partnership firm was registered annually under section 26A up to and inclusive of the assessment year 1958-59. For the assessment year 1959-60 an application for renewal of registration signed by Muneshwar Prasad, Satchidanand and Om Kumar was filed before the Income-tax Officer. It appears that Om Kumar had meanwhile attained majority and had, therefore, signed the application for renewal of registration. In the application there was a speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minor, on attaining majority, must be deemed to have become a full-fledged partner of the firm. Now, while that may be so for the purposes of the partnership law, the question is whether it satisfies the requirements of the income-tax law in respect of registration of a partnership firm. Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act provides for the registration of a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners. It is true, as pointed out by the Supreme court in R. C. Mitter Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, that the instrument of partnership need not be a document creating the partnership and that it may bean instrument merely giving a legal form to the partnership by reducing the term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration. The law requires that the profits should be divided or credited annually between the partners and it is necessary for a firm applying for registration to state that in the application : (Surajmalls v. Commissioner of income-tax). Indeed, in the instant case such statement was made in the application but there is no dispute that the annual profits of the Standard Hotel business were neither divided nor credited between the partners. That being so, it is clear that the Income-tax Officer was justified in refusing to register the assessee-firm on that ground also. We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Income-tax is entitled to his costs, which we assess at Rs. 200. The fee of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
