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

1977 Supreme(AP) 245

B.J.DIVAN, A.RAMANUJULU NAIDU, A.R.LAKSHMANAN, A.SAMBASIVA RAO, A.RAGHUVIR
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (A. P. ) – Appellant
Versus
Vinayaka Cinema, Nellore – Respondent


DIVAN,C. J.

( 1 ) THESE two matters have been placed before a Full Bench of five Judges in view of the order of reference made by a Division Bench of which one of us (Divan C. J.) was a member on 1/12/1976. Those two matters were referred to a larger Bench in view of the conflicting decisions of the different High Courts on the point which is involved in both these matters.

( 2 ) THE question that has to be decided is whether the provisions of S. 187 of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can be invoked by the Income-tax authorities, when a partnership firm is dissolved; and after the dissolution of the partnership firm, the business of the firm is continued by another partnership firm in which one or more of the partners of the dissolved firm have also joined and there are thus common partners between the dissolved firm and the new firm which continues the business of the old firm.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the controversies arising in both these matters, we will first refer to the facts in R. C. No. 22 of 1975. We are concerned in this case with assessment year 1969-70. The relevant accounting year is financial year 1968-69. The assessee is a registe

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