Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (2) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted April 1, 1974, consisting of four partners. With effect from April 1, 1979, under a deed bearing the same date, they agreed to admit into the partnership two more partners. The assessee-firm also filed an application in Form No. 11A on the basis of the deed dated April 1, 1979, together with a copy of the deed on March 27, 1980. Hence, the application for registration was filed four days before the close of the year. On April 30, 1980, a letter was filed by the assessee-firm before the Income-tax Officer, whereby the assessee claimed that since the excise authorities have objected to the admission of the two partners as prior intimation was not sent to them the deed dated April 1, 1979, and the application filed in Form No. 11 may be tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsisting of four partners. Another deed was drawn on April 1, 1979, wherein they agreed to admit to the partnership two more partners. The assessee-firm also filed the application in Form No. 11A on the basis of the deed dated April 1, 1979. The assessee also wrote a letter dated April 30, 1980, to the Income-tax Officer stating that the change effected on April 1, 1979, was not given effect to. Therefore, the new deed was withdrawn and application in Form No. 11A was also requested to be treated as cancelled. The assessee also filed Form No. 12 along with the return for the assessment year 1980-81. The capital contribution by the newly admitted two partners was transferred to their current account and interest was also credited to their ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m was originally constituted under a partnership deed dated April 1, 1974, with four partners. Thereafter, by another partnership deed dated April 1, 1979, two more partners were inducted into the firm. The new partners also contributed their capital. From April 1, 1979, to March 27, 1980, the business was carried on by the partnership consisting of six partners. The Tribunal pointed out that these facts cannot be altered by the assessee either by not crediting the profits of the year in the manner contemplated by the deed or by seeking to withdraw the application for registration in Form No. 11A on the basis of such deed on the ground of objection by the excise authorities. It was also seen that the profits of the year were not credited in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... strument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners ; (ii) an application on behalf of and signed by all the partners and containing all the particulars as set out in the rules must be made ; (iii) the application should be made before the assessment of the firm for that particular year ; (iv) the profit or loss, if any, of the business relating to the accounting year should have been divided or credited, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of the instrument ; and (v) the partnership must be genuine and must actually have existed in conformity with the terms and conditions of the instrument of partnership in the accounting year. Once such conditions are satisfied, it is the obligation of the Income-tax Offi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtners had contributed their capital and accounts were maintained on that basis. But, later on, the assessee wanted to say that since the original partnership deed dated April 1, 1974, was restored, the profit was allotted to the four partners and not to the other two partners. As already pointed out after the deed dated April 1, 1979, the partnership created under the deed dated April 1, 1974, cannot have any existence so as to restore the same. In view of all these facts, the Tribunal was justified in doubting the genuineness of the firm. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the judicial pro nouncement cited supra, we see that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates