1999 PLP 3403 (PTD)
INCOME-TAX OFFICER , Versus KALYAN DAS MADAM MOHAN ,
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3403 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 230 I T R 191 |
| Bench Members | Om Prakash and P.K. Jain, JJ |
| Parties | INCOME-TAX OFFICER , Versus KALYAN DAS MADAM MOHAN , |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3403 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3403 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 230 I T R 191 bench comprising: Om Prakash and P.K. Jain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 3403 (PTD) (INCOME-TAX OFFICER , Versus KALYAN DAS MADAM MOHAN ,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
No agreement that firm would continue despite death of a partner
Death of a partner resulted in dissolution of firm
Two assessments to be made
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961,S.188. Held, that the Commissioner of Income-tax had recorded a clear finding that the partnership deed, dated. July 28, 1974, did not. contain' any agreement that in the event of death of a partner the firm shall not stand dissolved. In view of section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, 1932, a firm will stand dissolved in the event of the death of a partner and, therefore, the firm was dissolved on the death of partner B. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that two separate assessments should be made, one for the period before the death of B, 'and the other for the period after her death.
Judgment & Decree
No agreement that firm would continue despite death of a partner
Death of a partner resulted in dissolution of firm
Two assessments to be made
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961,S.188. Held, that the Commissioner of Income-tax had recorded a clear finding that the partnership deed, dated. July 28, 1974, did not. contain' any agreement that in the event of death of a partner the firm shall not stand dissolved. In view of section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, 1932, a firm will stand dissolved in the event of the death of a partner and, therefore, the firm was dissolved on the death of partner B. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that two separate assessments should be made, one for the period before the death of B, 'and the other for the period after her death. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "C", Delhi, referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under . section 256(I) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was, correct in law in holding that two separate assessments should be made, one for the period before the death of Smt. Bishan Devi, and the other for the period after her death? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in taking the view that the assessee's case was governed by section 18& of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the incomes of the two periods could not be clubbed?" From the facts as stated in the statement of the case, it is clear that the Commissioner of Income-tax recorded a clear finding that the partnership deed, dated July 28, 1974, did not contain any agreement to the contrary that in the event of death of a partner the firm shall not stand dissolved. In view of section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, a firm will stand dissolved in the event of the death of a partner and, therefore, we see no legal infirmity in the' view of the Appellate Tribunal that on the death of Smt. Bishan Devi (partner), the firm stood dissolved. In the case of dissolution, the Appellate Tribunal held that two assessments, one for the period anterior to the date of death and the other for the period posterior to the date of death will have to be made. On these facts both the questions are answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. M.B.A./3113/FC Reference answered