| Case ID |
f8204f45-be02-47f3-962e-330abdc180d7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Income-tax Reference No. 4 of 1986 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 23, 1992 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the partnership ceased to exist on the retirement of one of the two partners. The logical consequence of the retirement was dissolution, resulting in a new firm succeeding the old one, which falls under the provisions of section 188 of the Income Tax Act. The assessment should have been made under section 188, necessitating two separate assessments for the periods before and after the dissolution. The Tribunal's conclusion that the partnership was void due to the admission of minors was deemed incorrect, as the minors were not parties to the partnership, thus upholding the validity of the September 22, 1976 partnership deed. |
| Summary |
This case concerns the dissolution of a partnership under the Income Tax Act, specifically focusing on the implications of one partner's retirement. The Gauhati High Court addressed the fundamental principles of partnership law, emphasizing that the retirement of one partner in a two-partner firm leads to automatic dissolution of the partnership. The court clarified that the subsequent formation of a new partnership constituted a succession of firms, necessitating separate assessments for tax purposes. The case highlights critical aspects of partnership agreements, tax liabilities under the Income Tax Act, and the importance of understanding the legal implications of partnership changes. Such cases are pivotal for tax professionals and legal practitioners navigating partnership tax issues. Key terms related to partnership law, dissolution, and income tax assessments are essential for SEO optimization, given their relevance in legal discourse. |
| Court |
Gauhati High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
U.L. BHAT, C.J.,
W.A. SHISHAK, J
|
| Lawyers |
Nemo for the Assessee,
D.K. Talukdar for the Commissioner
|
| Petitioners |
Deorah & Co
|
| Respondents |
COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1993 SLD 179,
1993 PTD 1442,
(1993) 200 ITR 467
|
| Other Citations |
Addl. CIT v. Hiarjivandas Hathibhai (1977) 108 ITR 517 (Guj),
Addl. CIT v. Vinayaka Cinema (1977) 110 ITR 468 (AP),
Addl. CIT v. Visakha Flour Mills (1977) 108 ITR 466 (AP),
CIT v. Alagappa Cotton Mills (1984) 149 ITR 640 (Mad),
CIT v. Kelukutty (1972) 85 ITR 102 (Ker),
CIT v. Ram Bilas Purshottam Dass (1993) 200 ITR 461 (All),
CIT v. Sant Lai Arvind Kumar (1982) 136 ITR 379 (Delhi),
CIT v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills (1965) 57 ITR 510 (SC),
CIT v. Shambulal Nathalal & Co. (1984) 145 ITR 329 (Kar),
Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 517 (All),
Nandlal Sohanlal v. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 170 (P & H),
Vimal and Amar Talkies v. CIT (1982) 138 ITR 660 (MP),
Vinodkumar Ratilal v. CIT (1975) 100 ITR 564 (Guj),
Wazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 761 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1922,
Indian Partnership Act, 1932
|
| Sections |
182,
183,
184,
185,
186,
000
|