Case LawHigh Court › Rc/7/2004 Of Commissioner Of Incometax v...

Rc/7/2004 Of Commissioner Of Incometax v. M/S. Mahalaxmi Corpn. Hyderabad

High Court 17 Mar 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Rc/7/2004 Of Commissioner Of Incometax v. M/S. Mahalaxmi Corpn. Hyderabad
Date of order
17 Mar 2015
Assessment year(s)
1983-84
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Rc/7/2004 Of Commissioner Of Incometax v. M/S. Mahalaxmi Corpn. Hyderabad, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: The only question referred to was whether the partnership firmdeserves registration in view of the fact that one of the adult partnerswas only to share profits with the other partners without anyresponsibility for any liability to share the losses of the firm.

Decision: In the circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss thisReferred Case for non-prosecution.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALEAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO REFERRED CASE No.7 of 2004 ORDER:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Dilip B.Bhosale) This Referred Case was registered in view of the reference madeby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ‘A’ on10.01.2003. It pertains to the assessment year 1983-84. From therecord, we find an endorsement that “in spite of several reminders, theRevenue has not filed required annexures”. Till today, the respondentassessee has not been served. 2. The only question referred to was whether the partnership firmdeserves registration in view of the fact that one of the adult partnerswas only to share profits with the other partners without anyresponsibility for any liability to share the losses of the firm. The firm,with seven partners, was constituted and a partnership deed wasexecuted on 21.11.1981. Clause 13 of the deed provided that the losseswould be shared only by six partners, while the profits would be sharedby all of them. 3. In the circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss thisReferred Case for non-prosecution. Order accordingly. There shall beno order as to costs. ______________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE, J ______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan