9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act"), by the Tribunal to this court. The questions are : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any evidence to hold that the share of the deceased father in the main partnership firm devolved on his sons in equal shares by succession ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any evidence to hold that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in regard to the effect of the devolution of the property in the., case of the joint Mitakshara family was not raised nor considered by the Tribunal. The only question that calls for determination is whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was a genuine sub-partnership which was entitled to registration. The facts as stated by the Tribunal are that the six partners of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistration of the firm under section 185 of the Act was refused by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that no genuine partnership had come into being. The Tribunal, following the principle laid down in the case of Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 323 (SC), held that the concept of sub-partnership had been recognised India and registration should be accorded to such sub-partnership unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
