Home ›

Search Results For: Partnership

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 26, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 28, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
There is a clear distinction between ‘retirement of a partner’ and ‘dissolution of a partnership firm’. On retirement of the partner, the reconstituted firm continues and the retiring partner is to be paid his dues in terms of Section 37 of the Partnership Act. In case of dissolution, accounts have to be settled and distributed as per the mode prescribed in Section 48 of the Partnership Act. When the partners agree to dissolve a partnership, it is a case of dissolution and not retirement A partnership firm must have at least two partners. When there are only two partners and one has agreed to retire, then the retirement amounts to dissolution of the firm (Imp judgements referred)

The primary claim and submission of the appellants is that Amar Singh had resigned as a partner and, therefore, in terms of clause (10) of the partnership deed (Exhibit P-3) dated 6 th May 1981, he would be entitled to only the capital standing in his credit in the books of accounts. However, the argument has to be rejected as in the present case there were only two partners and there is overwhelming evidence on record that Amar Singh had not resigned as a partner. On the other hand, there was mutual understanding and agreement that the partnership firm would be dissolved

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 26, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 3, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45(4): If new partners come into the partnership and bring cash by way of capital contribution and the retiring partners take cash and retire, the retiring partners are not relinquishing their interest in the immovable property. What they relinquish is their share in the partnership. As there is no transfer of a capital asset, no capital gains or profit can arise & s. 45(4) has no application (A. N. Naik 265 ITR 346 (Bom) distinguished, Dynamic Enterprises 359 ITR 83 (Karn) [FB] followed)

The property belongs to the partnership firm. It did not belong to the partners. The partners only had a share in the partnership asset. When the five partners came into the partnership and brought cash by way of capital contribution to the extent of their contribution, they were entitled to the proportionate share in the interest in the partnership firm. When the retiring partners took cash and retired, they were not relinquishing their interest in the immovable property. What they relinquished is their share in the partnership. Therefore, there is no transfer of a capital asset, as such, no capital gains or profit arises in the facts of this case. In that view of the matter, Section 45(4) has no application to the facts of this case

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 3, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 3, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45(4): The revaluation of asset being land held by the partnership firm which results into enhancement of value of asset and this enhanced amount credited in capital account of partners and when a retiring partner takes amount in his capital account including enhanced value of asset, it does not give rise to Capital Gain under section 45(4) r.w. Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act

The partnership firm continued to exist even after the retirement of Smt. Hemlata Shetty and Shri Sudhakar Shetty from the partnership. There was only a reconstitution of partnership firm on their retirement without there being any dissolution and the land properly acquired by the partnership firm continued to be owned by the said firm even after reconstitution without any extinguishment of rights in favour of the retiring partners. The retiring partners did not acquire any right in the said property and what they got on retirement was only the money equivalent to their share of revaluation surplus (enhanced portion of the asset revalued) which was credited to their capital accounts. There was thus no transfer of capital asset by way of distribution of capital asset either on dissolution or otherwise within the meaning of section 45(4) read with section 2(14) of the Act.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 21, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(b)(v): Provision in partnership deed for payment of salary at percentage share of profits multiplied by “allocable profits” is valid and entitles claim for deduction. S. 37(1): Contribution by law firm to IFA to create awareness of its activities is business expenditure

A plain reading of Clause 6(a) leads us to a conclusion that the term ‘allocable profits’ was used to mean ‘book profits’ as used in Section 40(b)(v) of the Act or otherwise the reference to the section in the Clause has no meaning. When the partners have understood and meant that the word “allocable profits” to mean surplus/book profits, prior to calculation of partners’ remuneration, and when such an understanding is manifest in its actions, we do not see any reason why the Revenue authorities should not understand this term in the same sense

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 3, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 269SS: Transaction of loan between a firm and its partner does not attract s. 269SS. If other High Courts have taken a consistent view, that should be followed even if opposite view is possible

Transaction effected between a firm and its partners cannot partake the colour of loan or deposit and as such, Section 269-SS nor Section 271-D of the Act would come into play

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Property introduced by a partner into firm becomes the asset of the firm even if there is no registered deed. Though the asset is held by the firm as a depreciable asset and though the investment in s. 54EC bonds is made in the names of the partners, the firm is eligible for s. 54EC exemption

Under s. 239 of the Indian Contract Act and s. 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, for the purpose of bringing the separate properties of a partner into the stock of the firm it is not necessary to have recourse to any written document at all, that as soon as a partner intends that his separate properties should become partnership properties and they are treated as such, then by virtue of the provisions of the Contract Act and the Partnership Act, the properties become the properties of the firm and that this result is not prohibited by any provision in the Transfer of Property Act or the Indian Registration Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 19, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
U/s 45(4), capital gains on transfer of capital assets on dissolution of firm has to be worked out on the basis of the fair market value of the capital asset on the date of transfer

(i) Dissolution and retirement are two different concepts. In the case of retirement, the retiring partner goes out of the firm but the remaining partners continue to carry on the business of the partnership as a firm. In the case …

M. Ahammedkutty vs. ITO (ITAT Cochin) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 12, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1998-99
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The correct test to be applied is whether the partnership assets were converted to capital assets of the partners at the time of dissolution

The correct test to be applied is whether the partnership assets were converted to capital assets of the partners at the time of dissolution. This we find, was provided for in the dissolution deed itself which records in clause (3) …

Arvind Shamji Chheda vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Read More »