Back
High Court Of Allahabad
Satish Chandra, C.J., R.M. Sahai, J.
Mobarak Ali Khan And Sons – Appellant
Versus
Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward – Respondent
Income-tax Reference 96 of 1975
Decided On : Apr 25,1978
Satish Chandra, C.J.
1. THE question refers to the assessment year 1968-69. Ahsan AH Khan who had been admitted to the benefits of the assessee-partnership firm attained majority on November 18, 1967. On January 1, 1968, a fresh partnership deed was executed in which the minor Ahsan Ali Khan became a full-fledged partner. THE relevant accounting period for the assessment year ended on December 31, 1967. Therefore, for purposes of this year, the position was that the minor became major on November 18, 1967, and before he could exercise the option within the given period of six months, the year ended. THE position is that till the end of the year in question, there has been no change in the constitution of the firm as held in the CIT v. Mathura Prasad Annoolal [1978] 115 ITR 372 (All). In this view, the firm was entitled to continuance of registration. THE Tribunal was in error in holding that there has been a change in the constitution of the firm. THE question of law whether there was a change in the constitution of the assessee-firm in the accounting year is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. In view of our answer to question No. 1, the second question becomes superfluous and the same is returned unanswered.
2. THE assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
