Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income Tax

29 ITR 535Supreme Court of India1956#10463 most cited

What is Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

A partnership firm is not a legal entity distinct from its partners and therefore cannot be a partner in another partnership firm. An individual, HUF or firm entering into a partnership must be a person recognised by law.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Dulichand Laxminarayan · partnership firm · partner in another firm · person · income tax act · partnership act · assessment procedure · HUF partner · firm partner

Judgments citing Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Nisarg Associates, Mumbai vs. PCIT Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 755/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenisarg Associates V. Ld. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 20 Room No. 418, Piramal Chambers 1304, Ashok Heights, Near Nicco Circle Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Nikolas Wadi Road, Gundavalli Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 Pan: Aahfn4619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri Ronak G. Doshi & : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…nterest paid to partners (Partnership firms), Ld. AR submitted that Partnership firm can be a partner in other partnership firm, and relied on the following case laws (i). Chhotalal Devchand v. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 351)(Bom) (ii). (Dulichand Laxminarayan (1956) (29 ITR 535) (SC) distinguished) (iii). Megatrends Inc. CIT (2017)(383 ITR 53)(Mad) (iv). Radha Krishna Jalan v. ITO (2007)(294 ITR 28)(Gau) 18. Further, Ld. AR submitted that disallowance of salary and interest to partners (being firm) applying section 40b cannot be made de-tors application of provisions of section 184(3) since the status of the assessee be…

Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur vs. M/S Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation

C.A. No.-004928 - 2018Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 65Section 73Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78

…s and purposes. 9. The word “firm” cannot include a company. The name of a partnership firm is a compendious method of describing the partners in a partnership firm as was laid down in Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar, [1955] 27 ITR 1 (SC), Dulichand Laxminarayan, [1956] 29 ITR 535 (SC) and Malabar Fisheries Co., [1979] 120 ITR 49 (SC). It is distinct from a company, a juristic person distinct from its shareholders; whereas a partnership firm comprises the partners and has no separate entity or existence without the partners. According to section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932, a “firm” means persons entering into partnershi…

Fomra & Co., Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1648/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 18.09.2019
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…a compendious way of describing the individuals constituting the firm. An HUF directly or indirectly cannot become a partner of a firm because the firm is an association of individuals. 5. In the case of Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 29 ITR 535, it was held by a Bench of three Judges of this Court that a firm is not a "person" and as such was not entitled to enter into a partnership with another firm or an HUF or an individual. In that case, an individual, a joint family and three firms purported to enter into a partnership. The agreement of partnership was signed by the individual partn…

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Aquapump Industries, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1355/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1355 & 1356/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-2015. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Aquapump Industries, Of Income Tax, Post Box No.5803, Non Corporate Circle 4, Thudiyalur Post, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 034. [Pan Aadfa 8027C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G. Suresh, FCA
Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1355 & 1356/CHNY/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2013-14 & 2014-2015. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. Aquapump Industries, of Income Tax, Post Box No.5803, Non Corporate Circle 4, Thudiyalur Post, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 034. [PAN AADFA 8027C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mrs. Ruby George, IRS, C…

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Aquasub Engineering, Coimbatore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1354/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1351, 1352, 1353 & 1354/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Aqua Sub Engineering, Tax, Vs. Thudiyalur Post, Non Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 034. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfa 8028P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Subramanian, FCA
Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ बी ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज"माथन, "या"यक सद यएवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम% BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1351, 1352, 1353 & 1354/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Income M/s. Aqua Sub Engineering, Tax, Vs. Thudiyalur Post, Non Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 034. Coimbatore. [PAN: AADFA 8028P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, CIT Revenue by…

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Aquasub Engineering, Coimbatore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1352/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1351, 1352, 1353 & 1354/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Aqua Sub Engineering, Tax, Vs. Thudiyalur Post, Non Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 034. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfa 8028P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Subramanian, FCA
Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ बी ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज"माथन, "या"यक सद यएवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम% BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1351, 1352, 1353 & 1354/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Income M/s. Aqua Sub Engineering, Tax, Vs. Thudiyalur Post, Non Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 034. Coimbatore. [PAN: AADFA 8028P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, CIT Revenue by…

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Aqua Sub Engineering, Coimbatore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1351/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1351, 1352, 1353 & 1354/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Aqua Sub Engineering, Tax, Vs. Thudiyalur Post, Non Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 034. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfa 8028P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Subramanian, FCA
Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ बी ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज"माथन, "या"यक सद यएवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम% BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1351, 1352, 1353 & 1354/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Income M/s. Aqua Sub Engineering, Tax, Vs. Thudiyalur Post, Non Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 034. Coimbatore. [PAN: AADFA 8028P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, CIT Revenue by…

Aquasub Engineering, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 929/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.929/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Aquasub Engineering, The Assistant Commissioner Of Post Box 5803, Tudiyalur Post, V. Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 034. Circle Iii, Coimbatore. Pan : Aadfa 8028 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Subramaniam, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Vijayalakshmi, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.929/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s Aquasub Engineering, The Assistant Commissioner of Post Box 5803, Tudiyalur Post, v. Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 034. Circle III, Coimbatore. PAN : AADFA 8028 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Subramaniam, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Res…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Aqua Sub Engineering, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1959/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1958/Mds/2016 & C.O. No.111/Mds/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 1958/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunder Rao, CIT
Section 185(1)(a)Section 40

…du undivided family joins a partnership, the partnership will be between the nominated person and the other partners of the firm. Having regard to the definition of “partnership” and “partners” and in view of the principle laid down in Dulichand’s case [1956] 29 ITR 535 (SC), it is not possible to hold that a Hindu undivided family being a fluctuating 9 I.T.A. No.1958 & 1959/Mds/16 C.O. Nos.111 & 112/Mds/16 body of individuals, can enter into a partnership with other individual partners. It cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly. If the karta or any other member of a Hindu undivided family joins a part…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Aqua Pump Industries, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1958/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1958/Mds/2016 & C.O. No.111/Mds/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 1958/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunder Rao, CIT
Section 185(1)(a)Section 40

…du undivided family joins a partnership, the partnership will be between the nominated person and the other partners of the firm. Having regard to the definition of “partnership” and “partners” and in view of the principle laid down in Dulichand’s case [1956] 29 ITR 535 (SC), it is not possible to hold that a Hindu undivided family being a fluctuating 9 I.T.A. No.1958 & 1959/Mds/16 C.O. Nos.111 & 112/Mds/16 body of individuals, can enter into a partnership with other individual partners. It cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly. If the karta or any other member of a Hindu undivided family joins a part…

Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income Tax (29 ITR 535) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax