9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried under the name and style of Messrs. Whiteways General Stores as its head office, and Messrs. Anarkali as its branch office. The firm applied for registration for the assessment year 1964-65. Registration was granted. It was renewed for the assessment year 1965-66. On April 1, 1965, the two partners executed an agreement in order to change the name of the firm. The name of the firm at the head office was changed from " Messrs. Whiteways General. Stores " to " Messrs. Delight Stores " and the name " Messrs. Anarkali " at the branch office was changed to " Royal Hosiery." At the time of assessment for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the firm applied for renewal of registration. The Income-tax Officer, Lucknow, passed three orders on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners ......" The question, therefore, arises whether the change of name of the firm has resulted in a change in the constitution of the firm. If there has been such a change, the assessee is not entitled to renewal of registration. On the other hand, if there has been no change in the constitution of the firm the assessee is prima facie entitled to renewal of registration. According to clause (23) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the expressions " firm partner " and "partnership" have the same meaning as in the Indian Partnership Act. We have, therefore, to turn to the definition of these terms in the Indian Partnership Act. These terms have been defined in section 4 of the India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he constitution of a firm may come about in two ways--firstly, some partners may leave the firm, or some new partners may join a firm ; secondly, the shares of the various partners may be altered. The language of proviso (1) of sub-section (7) of section 184 of the Act suggests that a change in the shares of partners is not a change in the constitution of the firm. The plan is somewhat different from that in sub-section (2) of section 187 of the Act. Whether we consider the plan of the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 184 or that of sub-section (2) of section 187, we find no indication that a mere change of name amounts to a change in the constitution of the firm. The respondents were, therefore, wrong in holding that there has been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
