SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 49

S.B.MAJMUDAR, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
Commissioner Of Income Tax, A. P. – Appellant
Versus
B. Posetty And Company – Respondent


ORDER

The short question involved in this appeal is as to whether a sub-partnership entered into by one of the partners of the firm carrying on the business of vending liquor or abkari business, governed by the provisions of Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act, 1316F (hereinafter referred to as Abkari Act ) during the relevant assessment year 1966-67 could be registered under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when such sub-partnership was entered into without following the statutory provisions of Section 14 of the Abkari Act. The said Section lays down that the lessee of liquor business cannot take partners without prior permission of Government. The Income Tax Officer refused registration holding that the sub-partnership contravened the aforesaid provision and hence it was void and unenforceable, being formed only to share the profits of abkari business. The said view was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, on assessee s further appeal the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the sub-partnership had all the insignia of a valid partnership and was required to be registered. The following question was referred by the Trib














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top