9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (1) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed for registration of the said firm for the year ending with March 31, 1962. The Income-tax Officer, taking into account clauses 9 and 10 of the partnership deed, held that there was no relationship of partners between the said Subramaniarn Chetty and his son, Pandurangan, inasmuch as Panduragan derived his right and power only by consent of big father. In that view, the Income-tax Officer rejected the application for registration. There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who, however, held that the two conditions for bringing into effect a partnership, namely, (1) an agreement to share the profits as well as the losses of the business, and (2) each of the partners acting as agent of the other, had been duly fulf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer as well as by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law, and the view of the Tribunal that clauses 8 and 9 of the partnership deed clearly abrogate altogether the agency principle is not tenable at all in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K. D. Kamath & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. On a due consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission. The decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above is of considerable assistance to the assessee in this case. Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 16, on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal for holding that the relationship of partners between Subramaniam Chetty and his son, Pandurangan, has not come into existence on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Mysore High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. D. Kamath & Co. in support of its view that the control and management of the business by one partner is decisive of the question of the existence of the relationship of the partners. But we find that the said decision of the Mysore High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. D. Kamath & Co. has now been reversed by the decision of the Supreme Court in K. D. Kamath & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In that case also the exclusive power and control of the partnership business was vested in one of the partners by agreement of parties. In has also been provided in the partnership deed in that case that only one partner could operate bank accounts or borrow on behalf of the firm. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
