ORDER
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.
1. The High Court, having considered the relevant terms of the partnership deed in question, has reached the conclusion that the minors were admitted as full-fledged partners and, therefore, the partnership deed was not liable to be registered. The view taken by the High Court was doubted for the subsequent year of assessment and the question was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench, by the decision (Addl. CIT v. Uttam Kumar Pramod Kumar), has reiterated the view taken by the Division Bench for the earlier assessment year.
2. We have ourselves examined the terms of the partnership deed. We are unable to take a view different from the one expressed by the High Court. Although the preamble of the deed provides that the minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership, the dominant intention of the parties as it appears from the other terms of the deed unmistakably points out that the minors were, in fact, admitted as full partners and not for benefits alone. There is, therefore, no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the High Court.
3. The civil appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
