1954 JTR(P&H) 7
1955 28 ITR 280
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Khosla and Kapur JJ.
Income-tax Commissioner, Delhi
Versus
Messrs.Birdhi Chand Girdhari Lal
Income tax Reference No. 26 of 1952,
Decided On : MARCH 10, 1954
Partnership registration under section 26A cannot be granted to partnerships where an oral partnership is followed by a partnership deed executed after the accounting period.
Partnership Registration - Oral Partnership - Legal provision regarding registration of partnership under section 26A
Fact of the Case:
The court relied on previous Division Bench decisions to conclude that an oral partnership followed by a partnership deed executed after the accounting period cannot be registered as having taken place before and during the accounting year, thus not entitled to registration under section 26A.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the partnership in question was not entitled to registration under section 26A based on the legal provision and previous case law.
Issues: The issue was whether an oral partnership followed by a partnership deed executed after the accounting period could be registered as having taken place before and during the accounting year.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal provision and previous Division Bench decisions to establish that such partnerships are not entitled to registration under section 26A.
Final Decision: The court answered the reference accordingly, concluding that the partnership was not entitled to registration under section 26A.
Partnership Registration - Oral Partnership - Legal provision regarding registration of partnership under section 26A
Fact of the Case:
The court relied on previous Division Bench decisions to conclude that an oral partnership followed by a partnership deed executed after the accounting period cannot be registered as having taken place before and during the accounting year, thus not entitled to registration under section 26A.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the partnership in question was not entitled to registration under section 26A based on the legal provision and previous case law.
Issues: The issue was whether an oral partnership followed by a partnership deed executed after the accounting period could be registered as having taken place before and during the accounting year.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal provision and previous Division Bench decisions to establish that such partnerships are not entitled to registration under section 26A.
Final Decision: The court answered the reference accordingly, concluding that the partnership was not entitled to registration under section 26A.
Judgment
KHOSLA, J.
1. This matter is concluded by two Division Bench decisions of this Court, Kalsi Mechanical Works, Nandpur v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Simla and Messrs. Padam Parshad Rattan Chand of Delhi v. Commissioner of Income-tax. It has been held in both these cases that where an oral partnership is alleged to have come into existence and this oral partnership was followed by a partnership deed executed after the accounting period the partnership cannot be registered as having taken place before and during the accounting year. The partnership is not in such cases entitled to registration under section 26A.
2. We accordingly answer the reference in these terms. The respondent will pay costs which we assess at Rs. 150.
KAPUR, J.
3 I agree.
4. Reference answered accordingly.