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

1968 Supreme(Kar) 104

A.R.Somnath Iyer, Ahmed
R. B. Angadi And Sons – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.Shrinivasan, S.R.Rajasekharamurthy

JUDGMENT

Somnath Iyer, J.

1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, sought by the assessee which is a firm in Hubli. There were four partners in the firm and in the opinion of the Tribunal, the instrument of partnership, on its interpretation, specified only the shares of the partners in the profit and not their shares in the losses. So, it reversed the order made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored that made by the Income-tax Officer who refused registration under section 26 A of the Act. The two question of law referred to us read :

"(1) Whether for obtaining registration under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922, it is necessary for a firm to specify the shares of the partners in losses also in the instrument of partnership, besides specifying the shares of profits ?

(2) Whether, on a reasonable interpretation of clauses 3 and 7 of the instrument of partnership under which the assessee firm was constituted, could it be said that the shares of the partners in losses have not been specified in the deed disentitling if from getting registration under the Income-tax Act ?"

2. If the first question is answered in favour of the

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