9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (5) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for registration in form No. 11 was given in time. The ITO examined all the four partners and found that the two lady partners were not taking part in the affirms of the firm. They denied to have received interest on their investments in the firm or to have made any withdrawals. Further in his opinion they had no capital of their own. Smt. Sumitra Devi had deposited Rs. 10,000 as initial capital, which she had as deposits received by way of gift from her son, Puran Chand, while Smt. Rani Khosala had deposited Rs. 10,000 which she had received from her father-in-law, Shri Basant Lal. He, therefore, held that Smt. Sumitra Devi was benamidar of Shri Puran Chand, while Smt. Rani Khosala was benamidar of Shri Basant Lal and in view of Explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuted. The firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms and its constitution was declared before the bank. Form No. 11 was duly filed in time and the profits were divided amongst the partners according to their shares specified in the partnership deed. Investments in the firm had been made by all the partners as would appear from the copy of either accounts at page 3 and 4 of the paper book. Thus all the formalities had been fully complied with and registration could not have been refused. Our attention was invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this connection in Agarwal Co. vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 10 (SC) and K.D. Makesh Co. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 680 (SC). In Agrawal Co. it has been laid down that the conditions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, while Smt. Rani Khosla had received amount from her father-in-law. These two gifts have been accepted and gifts tax has been paid on the same. Copies of these assessment orders are at pages 7 8. 4. It was further contended on behalf of the assessee that Puran Chand and Daya Nand had been assessed on share income from the firm treating it a registered firm before the assessment was made on the firm because they received the demand notice on 26th Sept., 1974, while the order under appeal was made by the ITO on 15th Nov., 1974. It was conceded that this being the position the firm could not have been denied registration. For this submission, reliance has been placed on certain decisions viz. CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
