9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. Gandhi became a partner as the karta of his Hindu undivided family comprising himself, his wife and his two minor sons and one minor daughter. The other partners of the firm were Harshadkumar Jayantilal Gandhi and Nikhilkumar Jayantilal Gandhi who had by then attained majority. Under the partnership deed, the three minor children of Mahendrakumar were admitted to the benefits of partnership. The respective shares of the partners were : Mahendrakumar jayantilal Gandhi (HUF) - 30 per cent. Harshadkumar jayantilal Gandhi - 20 per cent. Nikhilkumar jayantilal Gandhi - 20 per cent. and each of the three minor children of Mahendrakumar were admitted to the benefits of partnership to the extent of 10 per cent. The assessee-firm, as cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Supreme Court further said that, if such a firm is genuine, it is entitled to registration. It observed that 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 Officer under the Act to extend the benefit of registration and allow the firm to enjoy the benefits provided by the Act. In the case of Chandrakant Manilal Shah v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 1, the Supreme Court considered a case where the karta of a Hindu undivided family constituted a partnership along with one of the coparceners who had joined the partnership as a working partner. The coparcener ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coparceners only if he brings in capital in his individual capacity. The legal position, therefore, is that there can be a valid partnership between a karta and a coparcener in his individual capacity. The coparcener who becomes a partner may bring in capital from out of his self-acquired property or he may contribute his skill and labour without bringing in any capital contribution. If the partnership is formed for the purpose of carrying on a business to earn profits and is genuine, there is no reason why it cannot be registered. (See also in this connection CIT v. Sir Hukumchand Mannalal and Co. [1970] 78 ITR 18 (SC) and Lachhman Das v. CIT [1948] 16 ITR 35 (PC)). Dr. Balasubramanium who appeared for the Department relied upon decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tlement to the benefits of partnership does not affect the constitution of a valid partnership firm in any manner. Had they been majors, they could have become partners in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Chandrakant Manilal Shah's case [1992] 193 ITR 1. So their being given a share in the benefits of the partnership cannot render the partnership invalid. The partnership is between the karta of the joint Hindu family and two other persons. Such partnership is valid in law. We are not here concerned with the manner in which income from the partnership can be assessed in the hands of the minors. In the premises, the question which is referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The question is answered ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
