| Case ID |
14aa9e69-a447-4e08-9b4d-73c5c0477dd8 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE Nos. 1 AND 64 OF 1973 |
| Decision Date |
May 15, 1981 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Tribunal held that two separate assessments should be made for the firm, one for the period up to the date of the partner's death and the other for the remaining period of the relevant assessment year. This decision was based on the understanding that the death of a partner resulted in the dissolution of the firm, as there was no provision in the original partnership deed for its continuation upon such an event. The court emphasized the importance of partnership agreements and the legal implications of a partner's death on the existence of the firm. This ruling affirmed that distinct assessments are necessary when a firm is dissolved due to a partner's death, ensuring that tax liabilities are appropriately attributed to the correct periods. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the principles of partnership law and the implications of a partner's death on the existence and assessment of a partnership firm under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Delhi High Court addressed two references concerning the dissolution of firms following the death of partners. The judgments clarified that in the absence of a provision in the partnership deed allowing for continuity after a partner's death, the firm is considered dissolved. Consequently, separate assessments must be conducted for the periods before and after the death of the partner. The case underlines the legal framework governing partnerships, emphasizing that the agreement among partners dictates the firm's continuity and tax obligations. The rulings are significant for tax practitioners and legal advisors dealing with partnership matters, as they highlight the necessity for clear partnership agreements to avoid complications in tax assessments. This case serves as a crucial reference for understanding how partnership dynamics affect tax obligations, particularly in scenarios involving succession or dissolution due to a partner's death. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
S. Ranganathan,
Mrs. Leila Seth
|
| Lawyers |
Wazir Singh,
Anoop Sharma,
T.M. Ansari
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Sant Lal Arvind Kumar
|
| Citations |
1982 SLD 1057,
(1982) 136 ITR 379
|
| Other Citations |
Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 517 (All.) (FB),
CIT v. Kunj Behari Shyam Lal [1977] 109 ITR 154 (All.) (FB),
Addl. CIT v. Dilsukh Rai Madho Prasad [1977] 108 ITR 299 (All.),
Kaithari Lungi Stores v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 160 (Mad.),
N. Mavukkarai Estate Tea Sundara Mudaliar [1981] 127 ITR 520 (Mad.),
Addl. CIT v. Vinayaka Cinema [1977] 110 ITR 468 (AP) (FB),
Mathuradas Govardhandas v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 470 (Cal.),
Dharam Pal Sat Dev v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 302 (Punj. & Har.),
Jupiter Foundry & Machines (Knives) v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 92 (Punj. & Har.),
Addl. CIT v. Visakha Flour Mills Ltd. [1977] 108 ITR 466 (AP) (FB),
Bhagwanji Morarji Goculdas v. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. AIR 1948 PC 100,
CIT v. A.W. Figgies & Co. [1953] 24 ITR 405 (SC),
CIT v. Jagat Ram Om Parkash [1979] 116 ITR 266 (Punj. & Har.),
Hoshiarpur Electric Supply Co. v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 164 (Punj. & Har.),
Karupukula Suryanarayana Shetty & Sons. v. CIT [1973] 92 ITR 141 (Mys.),
Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel v. CIT Patel Bhailal Narandas AIR 1968 Guj 157,
Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 49 (SC),
Nandlal Sohanlal v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 170 (Punj. & Har.) (FB),
Shivram Poddar v. ITO [1964] 51 ITR 823 (SC),
Tyresoles (India) v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 515 (Mad.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
188,
187,
189
|