HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Messrs Pratapmal Luxmichand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh
Civil Appeal 199 of 1955
[1956] SCR 91 ·
Indian Income-tax Act 1922, section 26A · Income-tax Rules 1922, rule 2(c)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · S. R. Das C.J. · N. H. Bhagwati · T. L. Venkatarama Ayyar
Assessment years: 1943–44
01 · Facts of the case
A seven-partner firm applied for registration with only six signatures because Gokulchand was detained. The appellate authority directed registration after obtaining his signature, although the Tribunal found no fully signed application had been presented to that authority.
Source: Primary report: SCR 92–94
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The statutory rules required all adult partners to sign personally. On the binding statement of case, the appellate authority could permit a proper application to the Income-tax Officer before disposal of assessment; it could not order registration conditional on later obtaining the missing signature.
Source: Primary report: SCR 95–99
03 · Judicial decision
The negative answer to the reference was affirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs.
Source: Primary report: SCR 99
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue succeeded; the conditional registration direction was invalid.
Source: Primary report: SCR 98–99
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Check the actual registration application and factual record, not merely subsequent signing of the deed. The Court did not decide the general proposition whether every partner must sign the partnership instrument. The ruling concerns the historical rule and framed reference.
Source: Primary report: SCR 96–99
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 9-page Supreme Court Reports scan. Any adjoining report fragments remain in the unchanged original and are excluded from this analysis.
Statutory scope
Historical legislation expressly identified in this note. This is not a decision under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Income-tax Act, 2025. Verify enacted wording, commencement, transition and subsequent judicial treatment independently before modern reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-23. Subsequent treatment and present-law applicability have not been comprehensively checked.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note uses AI assistance and a preserved full-primary review, with refreshed exact original-byte verification. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding.