9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 185 of the Income-tax Act cancelling the registration granted to the assessee-firm. 2. There was originally a firm constituted on 1-7-1979 with three partners, Ashok Kumar Gangoly, Kuldeep Singh Nanda and Arun Kumar Gangoly, carrying on the business of poultry farming and agriculture in the name of M/s. Arun Kumar Farming Corporation. That firm had been granted registration. The firm was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istent person and consequently the firm was not a genuine firm. He was also of the opinion that Kuldeep Singh Nanda could not be a party to the document in the dual capacity, one for himself and again as a promoter of a company. Hence, he directed the ITO by his order dated 11-2-1986 to refuse registration, which was accordingly done on 19-3-1986. On appeal, the CIT(A) accepted that Kuldeep Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tence as it was incorporated only on 10-6-1982 and there was no evidence of Kuldeep Singh Nanda having taken any steps to form the company. It was submitted that in the circumstances the orders of the authorities below should be upheld. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and we have perused the partnership deed. We find that Kuldeep Singh Nanda was a partner representing h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed of partnership that one of the partners represents some other person, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bagyalakshmi Co. It has also been held by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Raghavji Anandji Co. [1975] 100 ITR 246 that the same person can act in two different capacities in forming a partnership with others. It is also established by the assessee that after incorporation the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
