9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a partner? (ii) such transfer, if any, is not prohibited under the Abkari Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to be treated as a registered firm under the Income-tax Act?" The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of fifteen partners engaged in arrack business. During the previous year ending March 31, 1987, relevant to the assessment year 1987-88, the seventh group arrack shops in Kumbala Range, Kasaragod district, were taken in auction for a sum of Rs, 18,17,227 by the partnership firm. However, the licences for the shops were in the names of partners---P. Kunhiraman, B. Vasantha Pai and A. Janardhana. Clause 11 of the deed of partnership dated January 12, 1987, coverin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervation that since the licence is granted for dealing in intoxicating liquors, the business wherein is res extra commercium and also because they are supposed to be harmful and injurious to the health and morals of members of society, close control is envisaged and provided, over the business carried on under the licence. It is observed that this object will be defeated if the licensee is permitted to bring in strangers into the business, which would mean that instead of the licensee carrying on the business, it would be carried on by others, a situation not conducive to effective implementation of the excise law and consequently deleterious to public interest. The Full Bench has found the very constitution of the partnership firm being vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ihari Lal Jaiswal's case [1996] 217 ITR 746 would apply even in the case of such sub-partnership in spite of the situation that the said decision was rendered in connection with the partners of the main abkari business taking in more partners in the main abkari business. It is in this connection, for authoritative pronouncement in relation to the situation of sub-partnership, after making observations, a reference to the larger Bench was made by the apex court. In our judgment, the Full Bench decision of this court wholly binds us. Apart therefrom, the Full Bench drew strength from Bihari Lal Jaiswal's case [1996] 217 ITR 746 of the apex court. In addition, the observations referred to above with reference to B. Posetty and Co.'s case [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
