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

1987 Supreme(AP) 173

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, UPENDRA LAL WAGHRAY
Commissioner of Income Tax – Appellant
Versus
Three Aces – Respondent


JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THREE identical questions are referred in these references. The assessee is common. The questions referred are :" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no legal impediment to a major entering into a contractual relationship with others, respectively, from a point of time when he or she was a minor ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the partnership agreement dated 4/01/1972, did not, in any case, have the effect of making Shashi Rani liable for losses occurring or arising during her minority, though the partnership was stipulated to commence from a point of time when she was a minor ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership was not opposed to any of the provisions of the Excise Act or the rules thereunder and was not violative of any of the conditions of the licence granted under the said Act and was, therefore, not illegal ?"rc No. 285 of 1980 pertains to the assessment year 1972-73, while RC No. 237 of 1980 relate













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