K.D. Kamath & CO. v. CIT

82 ITR 680Reported decision1971#25714 most cited
3

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

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing K.D. Kamath & CO. v. CIT

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…only question remained whether the firm be assessed as registered firm or unregistered firm. It was not in dispute that the assessee made all the necessary compliance required for getting the registration as per section 185. In K.D. Kamath & CO. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 680 the Supreme Court held that 18 ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 M/s. Dayanand, Contractor, V & PO Kharainti, Dist. Rohtak. the fact that the exclusive power and control, by agreement of the parties, is vested in one partner, and the further circumstances that only one partner can operate the bank accounts or borrow on behalf of the firm, is not destru…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…only question remained whether the firm be assessed as registered firm or unregistered firm. It was not in dispute that the assessee made all the necessary compliance required for getting the registration as per section 185. In K.D. Kamath & CO. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 680 the Supreme Court held that 18 ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 M/s. Dayanand, Contractor, V & PO Kharainti, Dist. Rohtak. the fact that the exclusive power and control, by agreement of the parties, is vested in one partner, and the further circumstances that only one partner can operate the bank accounts or borrow on behalf of the firm, is not destru…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 144A

…only question remained whether the firm be assessed as registered firm or unregistered firm. It was not in dispute that the assessee made all the necessary compliance required for getting the registration as per section 185. In K.D. Kamath & CO. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 680 the Supreme Court held that the fact that the exclusive power and control, by agreement of the parties, is vested in one partner, and the further circumstances that only one partner can operate the bank accounts or borrow on behalf of the firm, is not destructive of the theory of partnership provided two essential conditions are satisfied, namely…

K.D. Kamath & CO. v. CIT (82 ITR 680) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax