9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (12) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A REDDY J.--Kanhayalal was a partner of the firm M/s. Karnal Tractors and Motor Workshop with a 25 per cent. share in the profits and losses of the firm. On October 26, 1969, Kanhayalal and his father-in-law, Ram Chand, entered into a deed of partnership constituting as the business of the partnership, the share of Kanhayalal in the firm M/s. Karnal Tractors and Motor Workshop. Profits and losses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm was not genuine was based on the following circumstances : (1) The investment of Rs. 12,000 did not come from Ram Chand but came from his son. Even that was not properly proved. (2) Ram Chand was an old man of 72 years and had retired from service in 1962. His bank pass books were not produced. (3) The share given to Ram Chand was disproportionate to his investment. (4) Ram Chand never drew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that refusal of registration under section 185 was not justified in this case? " A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal misdirected itself and failed to take into consideration the relevant facts. Paragraph 8 of the order of the Tribunal shows that it was considering the question " whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndividual circumstance or to their cumulative effect may vary from case to case. Similarly the Tribunal expressed the view that the circumstance that Ram Chand did not withdraw his share of the profit did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. The question is not whether each individual circumstance by itself is sufficient to enable the revenue to conclude that the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
