1994 (3) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er 10, 1980, for the assessment year 1977-78 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in refusing registration to the firm ? " The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership-firm consisting of the following five partner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . of the share. He retired from the business on November 6, 1972, and, therefore, the share to his profit was proportionately increased in the remaining partners. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and the registration was refused. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was found that the genuineness of the firm has not been doubted and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was upheld. We have considered the matter. The genuineness of the firm is not in dispute nor has it been pointed out that there is any other objection. After the retirement of Mohanlal Kalidas who was having 37 per cent. of the share, the remaining partners who were having 63 per cent. share, were credited with the profit in the ratio between the partners .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X