HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Sir Hukumchand Mannalal & Co.
Civil Appeal No. 1774 of 1969
[1971] 1 SCR 646 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 26A · Indian Partnership Act, 1932: section 4
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · J. C. Shah, J. · K. S. Hegde, J.
Assessment years: 1954-55
01 · Facts of the case
The firm was formed under a deed dated 16 July 1948 as managing and selling agents of Hukumchand Mills. Hukumchand and his son were two of five partners and represented their HUF’s interest. After registration for earlier years, registration for AY 1954-55 was refused on the basis that two coparceners could not represent the same HUF in partnership. The Tribunal and High Court rejected that objection.
Source: SCR p. 647 / PDF p. 2
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court distinguished the individual contractual partners from the family’s beneficial interest. Members of an HUF are not disabled merely by that status from contracting with one another or strangers. A partnership satisfying section 4 is not invalid because multiple partners belong to the same HUF. For section 26A registration the officer was not required to determine the ultimate beneficial owner of a partner’s share.
Source: SCR pp. 647-649 / PDF pp. 2-4
03 · Judicial decision
The High Court’s affirmative answer that the firm could be registered was upheld. Revenue’s appeal failed and was dismissed with costs.
Source: SCR p. 649 / PDF p. 4
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee firm on the challenged ground for refusing registration. This does not resolve all questions concerning allocation of beneficial income between partners and their HUF.
Source: SCR pp. 648-649 / PDF pp. 3-4
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: identify the persons actually bound by the partnership agreement and assess contractual validity separately from beneficial ownership. Do not equate common HUF interests with lack of contractual capacity. The procedural registration result must be confined to section 26A and the dispute decided; modern firm-assessment requirements need independent examination.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR pp. 648-649 / PDF pp. 3-4
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full four-page SCR report read, separating editorial headnote from judicial reasoning; no neighbouring case text used.
- Full source read; page pinpoints used because judgment paragraphs are unnumbered. Exact original bytes match the catalogue SHA-256.
Statutory scope
This decision applies the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to the stated historical assessment years. Current statutory applicability and any Income-tax Act, 1961 or 2025 crosswalk are not determined.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Comprehensive subsequent treatment has not been verified; no current citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.