LEELA SETH, S.RANGANATHAN
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Appellant
Versus
SANT LAL ARVIND KUMAR – Respondent
( 1 ) THESE two references can be disposed of by a common judgment as there is a common question of law. In ITR 1/73 the assessee is a firm carried on in the name and style of M/s. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar, Delhi. It had four partners, Shri Sant Lal, Shri Hukam Chaad, Smt. Prem Wati and Smt. Gaitri Devi. On 13-7-1968 Shri Sant Lal expired. The original partnership deed contained no provision that the death of any partner would not dissolve the firm audit was common ground at the various stages that when Sant Lal died on 13-7-1968 there was adissolution of the firm of four partners referred to above. The firm books of account were closed on that date. Subsequently apartnership deed was executed on 16-7-1968 under which the three other erstwhile partners constituted a partnership With Arvind Kumar, a grandson of Shri Sant Lal and this partnership continue to carry on the business previously carried on by the firm of four partners. Shri Sant Lal had 30% share in the firm out of which 25 % was given to Arvind Kumar and 5% was added to the share of Smt. Gaitri Devi, one of the three old partners. For the assessment year 1969-70 two separate returns of income were filed in the
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dilsukh Rai Madho Prasad
Jupiter Foundry and Machinsa (Knives) v. CIT
Bhagwanji Morarji Goculdas v. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. and others
CIT v. A.W. Figgies and Company and others
Keshavlal Lalubhai Patel and others v. Patel Bhailal Narandas and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.