{"id":123899,"date":"1966-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966"},"modified":"2016-06-09T23:06:01","modified_gmt":"2016-06-09T17:36:01","slug":"parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966","title":{"rendered":"Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. &#8230; on 28 October, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. &#8230; on 28 October, 1966<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR  448, \t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswami, V.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPAREKH WADILAL JIVANBHAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M. P. NAGPURAND BHANDARA, NAGPUR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n28\/10\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSHAH, J.C.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  448\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 998\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax  Act (11 of 1922), s. 26A-Registration  of  firm-\nWhether individual shares of partners  specified-Partnership\ndeed, construction of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThree brothers entered into a partnership in 1949 for  doing\nbusiness.   Clause 3 of the partnership deed  provided\tthat\nthe  capital allotted to each partner was equal, and cl.  10\nprovided  that after meeting all the expenses, interest\t and\nother  charges, the resulting net profit or loss  should  be\nascertained  and divided amongst all the partners.   In\t the\nassessment  year 1951-52, the three partners applied to\t the\nIncome-tax Officer for registration of the firm under s. 26A\nof  the Income-tax Act, 1922 and registration  was  granted.\nFor  the assessment year 1952-53, the registration  was\t re-\nnewed  on application.\tBut for the assessment year  1953-54\nthe   Incometax\t Officer  refused  renewal.   In   all\t the\napplications for registration, the three partners were shown\nto  have  shared the profits equally, and in  their  account\nbooks  also, since 1949, the profits have  been\t apportioned\nequally.   The ground of refusal by the\t Income-tax  Officer\nwas,  that  there was no clause in the deed  specifying\t the\nindividual  share of profits of each partner as required  by\ns. 26A.\t The order was confirmed by the Appellate  Assistant\nCommissioner,  the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court  on\nreference.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD : The assessee firm was entitled to be registered under\ns.  26A\t of the Act for the assessment\tyear  1953-54  also.\n[1003 D]\nAlthough the application for registration had to be strictly\nin  conformity with the section and Rules,  in\tascertaining\nwhether\t  the  application  was\t in  such   conformity\t the\npartnership  deed has to be reasonably\tconstrued.   Reading\nthe partnership deed as a whole in the light of s. 13 of the\nPartnership  Act, 1932, and in the context of  the  relevant\ncircumstances  of the case, there was specification  of\t the\nindividual  shares of the three partners in the profits\t and\nlosses namely, that each partner was allotted an equal\tone-\nthird share and there was hence specification of the indivi-\ndual  shares  of  the partners within  the  meaning  of\t the\nsection, [1002 D-F]\nKylasa\tSarabhalah v. Commissioner of Income-tax,  [1965]  2\nS.C.R. 310, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1058  of<br \/>\n1965.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment  and order  dated<br \/>\nMarch  14\/15,  1961 of the Bombay High Court  in  Income-tax<br \/>\nReference No. 56 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n<p>Arvind P. Patwe, O. C. Mathur, for the appellant.<br \/>\nS.   T. Desai, A. N. Kirpal and R. N. Sachthey, for the res-<br \/>\npondent.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">999<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nRamaswami,  J. This appeal is brought, by special leave,  on<br \/>\nbehalf of the assessee from the judgment of the Bombay\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt dated March 15, 1961 in Income-Tax Reference No. 56 of<br \/>\n1960.\n<\/p>\n<p>The assessee is a partnership firm constituted under a\tDeed<br \/>\nof Partnership dated March 19, 1950.  The partners are three<br \/>\nbrothers-     Nandlal\t Bhimjibhai,Tarachand\t  Bhimjibhai<br \/>\nandRajnikant  Bhimjibhai, each one having an  equal  1\/3rd<br \/>\nsharein\t he partnership firm. Prior to November,  1949,<br \/>\nthe threepartners of the assessee-firm in partnership  with<br \/>\neight others carried on business in Bombay and other  places<br \/>\nin the name and style of &#8220;Rajnikant Vitheldas &amp; Co.&#8221; In that<br \/>\nlarger firm, each one of the three brothers had an equal two<br \/>\nannas  share  each,  the other\teight  partners\t having\t the<br \/>\nremaining  ten\tanna  share.   The  larger  partnership\t  of<br \/>\n&#8216;Rajnikant  Vitheldas  &amp; Co.&#8217; was dissolved on\tOctober\t 31,<br \/>\n1949 and on its dissolution the business of the two branches<br \/>\nthereof\t at Nagpur was allotted to the three  brothers,\t who<br \/>\nthereupon  as from November 1, 1949  constituted  themselves<br \/>\ninto  a new firm, viz., the assessee-firm under the deed  of<br \/>\npartnership  executed  on  March 19,  1950.   This  document<br \/>\nrecites that the three brothers have agreed to continue\t the<br \/>\nbusiness of the two branches at Nagpur in partnership on the<br \/>\nterms  mentioned in that document.  For the purpose of\tthis<br \/>\ncase, it is not necessary to reproduce all the terms of\t the<br \/>\npartnership  deed.  It is sufficient to reproduce only\tfour<br \/>\nterms as follows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;3.  The capital of the partnership  shall  be<br \/>\n\t      Rs.   2,40,000.\/-\t (Rupees  two\tlacs   forty<br \/>\n\t      thousand)\t divided  into\t15  shares  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n\t      16,000\/- each.  The partners hereby agree that<br \/>\n\t      the shares allotted to different partners will<br \/>\n\t      be  equal\t i.e., each partner  will  get\tfive<br \/>\n\t      shares.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      10.After meeting all expenses, interest and<br \/>\n\t      other charges,the\t resulting net\tprofit\tor<br \/>\n\t      loss shall be ascertained and shall be divided<br \/>\n\t      amongst all partners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      13.   In\tcase of death, or insolvency of\t any<br \/>\n\t      partner the surviving partners or such of them<br \/>\n\t      as  are  willing\tshall  have  the  rights  to<br \/>\n\t      purchase\tthe shares of such partners  at\t the<br \/>\n\t      valuation\t of  the  shares  in  the  preceding<br \/>\n\t      balance sheet.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      14.In  case  of  any  partner  desiring  to<br \/>\n\t      retire from the partnership will have to\tgive<br \/>\n\t      a written notice of at least two months to the<br \/>\n\t      other partners of his intention to do so.\t  On<br \/>\n\t      receipt of such notice, the remaining  partner<br \/>\n\t      or partners will purchase the share or  shares<br \/>\n\t      in pro-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      1000<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      portion  to  their  holding at  the  time\t the<br \/>\n\t      valuation in paragraph 13.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In  the assessment year 1951-52, the three partners  applied<br \/>\nto the Income-tax Officer for registration of the firm under<br \/>\nthe  Indian  Income-tax Act, 1922  (hereinafter\t called\t the<br \/>\n&#8216;Act&#8217;).\t   Along   with\t this  application,  the   deed\t  of<br \/>\npartnership dated March 19, 1950 was produced.\tBy his order<br \/>\ndated\tMarch  20,  1956  the  Income-tax  Officer   granted<br \/>\nregistration under s. 26A of the Act for the assessment year<br \/>\n1951-52.  On the same day, he determined the total income of<br \/>\nthe  firm  at Rs. 87,172\/-, and under s. 23(6) of  the\tAct,<br \/>\nallocated  it between the three partners for  tax  purposes,<br \/>\neach  partner  getting one-third share of the  total  income<br \/>\ni.e.,  Rs.  29,0571\/.\tOn the basis of the  same  deed,  an<br \/>\napplication was made for the renewal of registration of\t the<br \/>\nfirm  for  the\tassessment year 1952-53.   The\trenewal\t was<br \/>\ngranted-  on  March 28, 1957. For the assessment year  1953-<br \/>\n54,the partners again applied for renewal of  registration<br \/>\non thebasis of\tthe   same  deed,  but\tthe   Income-tax<br \/>\nOfficer was of theopinion   that  there was no\tclause\tin<br \/>\nthe deed specifying theindividual  shares of each  partner<br \/>\nas required by s. 26A of the Act.  After issuing notices  to<br \/>\nthe  three  partners and after giving them  a  hearing,\t the<br \/>\nIncome-tax  Officer,  by  his order dated  March  28,  1958,<br \/>\nrejected the application of the partners for renewal of\t re-<br \/>\ngistration  of\tthe firm.  The assessee took the  matter  in<br \/>\nappeal\tto  the\t Appellate Assistant  Commissioner  but\t the<br \/>\nappeal\twas  dismissed.\t  The assessee\tpreferred  a  second<br \/>\nappeal\tto the appellate Tribunal but that appeal  also\t was<br \/>\ndismissed.   At the instance of the assessee  the  appellate<br \/>\nTribunal  referred  the following question of  law  for\t the<br \/>\ndetermination of the High Court under s.     66(1)  of\t the<br \/>\nAct :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Whether\ton  a  proper  construction  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      partnership  deed\t dated 19-3-1950,  the\tfirm<br \/>\n\t      sought  to  be registered for  the  assessment<br \/>\n\t      year  1953-54,  can  be  said  to\t have  -been<br \/>\n\t      constituted under an instrument of partnership<br \/>\n\t      specifying   the\tindividual  shares  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      partners as required by section 26A of the Act<br \/>\n\t      ?&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      By  its  judgment -dated March 15,  1961,\t the<br \/>\n\t      High  Court  answered  the  question  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      negative, holding that renewal of registration<br \/>\n\t      under s. 26A of the Act was rightly refused by<br \/>\n\t      the Income-tax -authorities.<br \/>\n\t      Section 26A of the Act provides as follows<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;26A.  Procedure in registration of firms. (1)<br \/>\n\t      Application  may\tbe made\t to  the  Income-tax<br \/>\n\t      Officer  on  behalf of any  firm,\t constituted<br \/>\n\t      under an instrument of partnership  specifying<br \/>\n\t      the individual shares of the partners,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      1001<\/span><br \/>\n\t      for registration for the purposes of this\t Act<br \/>\n\t      and of any other enactment for the time  being<br \/>\n\t      in force relating to income-tax or Super-tax.<br \/>\n\t      (2)The  application  shall  be  made  by\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      person or persons, and at such times and shall<br \/>\n\t      contain such particulars and shall be in\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      form,  and be verified in such manner, as\t may<br \/>\n\t      be  prescribed; and it shall be dealt with  by<br \/>\n\t      the  Income-tax Officer in such manner as\t may<br \/>\n\t      be prescribed.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>By securing registration under the Act, the partners of\t the<br \/>\nfirm  obtain a benefit of lower rates of assessment  and  no<br \/>\ntax is directly charged on the income of the firm.  This  is<br \/>\nan  important benefit to which the partners of a  registered<br \/>\nfirm become entitled as a consequence of registration and if<br \/>\nit  is intended to secure that benefit, the requirements  of<br \/>\ns. 26A of the Act and the Rules framed under the Act must be<br \/>\nstrictly  complied  with   Rule 2 of  the  Income-tax  Rules<br \/>\nframed under s. 59 of the Act requires that the\t application<br \/>\nshall\tbe  signed  by\tthe  partners  (not   being   minors<br \/>\npersonally,  and  prescribes  the period  within  which\t the<br \/>\napplication shall be made for the year in question.  Rule  3<br \/>\nprovides   that\t the  application  shall  be  made  in\t the<br \/>\nprescribed  form  and shall be accompanied by  the  original<br \/>\ninstrument   of\t  partnership  under  which  the   firm\t  is<br \/>\nconstituted, together with a copy there of.  It is  provided<br \/>\nby Rule 4 that if on receipt of the application, the Income-<br \/>\ntax  Officer  is satisfied that there is or was\t a  firm  in<br \/>\nexistence  constituted\tas  shown,  in\tthe  instrument\t  of<br \/>\npartnership,  and  that the application\t has  been  properly<br \/>\nmade,  he  shall  enter\t in  writing  at  the  foot  of\t the<br \/>\ninstrument  or\tcertified  copy,  as  the  case\t may  be,  a<br \/>\ncertificate in the prescribed form By rule 6 the certificate<br \/>\nof  registration  granted under Rule 4 may  be\trenewed\t for<br \/>\nsubsequent years.  Section 4 of the Partnership Act  defines<br \/>\n&#8220;Partnership&#8221;  as  the &#8216;relation between  persons  who\thave<br \/>\nagreed to share the profits of a business carried on by\t all<br \/>\nor any of them acting for all  Persons who have entered into<br \/>\npartnership with one another are called individually  &#8216;part-<br \/>\nners&#8217; and collectively &#8216;a firm&#8217;, and the name &#8216; under  which<br \/>\ntheir  business\t is carried on is called  the  &#8216;firm  name&#8217;.<br \/>\nSection 13 of the Partnership Act provides as follows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;13.    Subject\tto  contract   between\t the<br \/>\n\t      partners-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   a  partner\tis not entitled\t to  receive<br \/>\n\t      remuneration for taking part in the conduct of<br \/>\n\t      the business;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t      (b)   the\t partners  are\tentitled  to   share<br \/>\n\t      equally  in  the\tprofits\t earned,  and  shall<br \/>\n\t      contribute equally to the losses sustained  by<br \/>\n\t      the firm<br \/>\nM17Sup.CI\/66-19<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1002<\/span><br \/>\nOn behalf of the assessee the argument was put forward\tthat<br \/>\nthe High Court was in error in holding that the assessee was<br \/>\nnot  entitled to registration under s. 26A of the  Act.\t  It<br \/>\nwas  submitted that on a proper construction of the  various<br \/>\nclauses\t of  the partnership deed dated March  19,  1950  it<br \/>\nshould\thave  been  held  that\tthe  shares  of\t the   three<br \/>\nindividual  persons in the profits and losses  were  clearly<br \/>\nspecified,  namely, that each partner was allotted an  equal<br \/>\none-third  share  and there was hence specification  of\t the<br \/>\nindividual  shares of the partners within the meaning of  s.<br \/>\n26A of the Act.\t In our opinion, the argument of the  appel-<br \/>\nlant is well-founded and must be accepted as correct.  It is<br \/>\nevident\t that  under cl. (3) of the  partnership  deed,\t the<br \/>\ncapital allotted to each partner is equal, viz., 5 shares of<br \/>\nRs.  16,000\/each  in  a total  capital\tof  Rs.\t 2,40,000\/-.<br \/>\nClause\t(10)  states  that  &#8220;after  meeting  all   expenses,<br \/>\ninterest and other charges, the resulting net profit or loss<br \/>\nshall  be  ascertained\tand shall  be  divided\tamongst\t all<br \/>\npartners&#8221;.   It\t should\t also be noticed  that\tin  all\t the<br \/>\napplications  for  registration made  by  the  assessee-firm<br \/>\nunder  s. 26A of the Act the three partners have been  shown<br \/>\nto share the profits of the partnership firm equally.  There<br \/>\nis also the other circumstance that in the books of accounts<br \/>\nfor  all the years since its commencement from\tNovember  1,<br \/>\n1949  right  upto  date the profits  have  been\t apportioned<br \/>\nequally\t mong  the three partners of the  partnership  firm.<br \/>\nReading\t the partnership deed as a whole and in the  context<br \/>\nof  the\t relevant circumstances of the case, we are  of\t the<br \/>\nopinion\t that  there  was specification\t of  the  individual<br \/>\nshares of the partners in the profits within the meaning  of<br \/>\ns.  26A\t of the Act and the assessee-firm  was\tentitled  to<br \/>\nregistration  for the assessment year in question.   It\t was<br \/>\npointed\t  out  by  this\t Court\tin  Kylasa   Sarabhaiah\t  v.<br \/>\nCommissioner of Income: tax, Hyderabad(1) that although\t the<br \/>\napplication  for registration of a firm under s. 26A of\t the<br \/>\nAct  had strictly to be in conformity with the Act  and\t the<br \/>\nRules,\tin  ascertaining  whether  the\tapplication  was  in<br \/>\nconformity with the Rules, the deed of partnership had to be<br \/>\nreasonably construed.  In that case, there were three  major<br \/>\npartners.  in firm A in which four minors were\tadmitted  to<br \/>\nthe benefits of partnership.  Its profits were to be  shared<br \/>\nequally between the seven persons whereas the losses were to<br \/>\nbe  shared  by the three major partners equally.   A  larger<br \/>\nfirm,  firm B, was constituted, with five partners, under  a<br \/>\ndeed  of  partnership in which firm A was described  as\t the<br \/>\nfirst  partner\tand its members were collectively  shown  as<br \/>\nhaving\ta  share  of 6 annas 9 pies in the  profits  of\t the<br \/>\nlarger firm.  The fact that four minors were admitted to the<br \/>\nbenefits  of partnership in firm A with equal shares in\t the<br \/>\nprofits but losses were to be shared only by its three major<br \/>\npartners, was, however, recited in the preamble<br \/>\n(1)  [1965] 2 S.C.R. 310: 56 I.T.R. 219.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1003<\/span><\/p>\n<p>to  the\t deed  of  partnership\tof  firm  B.  The  deed\t  of<br \/>\npartnership  of firm B was signed by all the major  partners<br \/>\nof  firm  A. The question at issue was whether\tfirm  B\t was<br \/>\nentitled  to be registered under s. 26A of the Act.  It\t was<br \/>\nheld  that the firm was entitled to be registered  and\tthat<br \/>\nregistration could not be refused merely because the deed of<br \/>\npartnership  set out in paragraph 8 therein  the  collective<br \/>\nshare  of  the\tyarn  shop as 6 annas 9\t pies,\tfor  in\t the<br \/>\npreamble  the division of the shares of profits\t and  losses<br \/>\namong the three members of the yarn shop and those  admitted<br \/>\nto  the benefits of the partnership was\t clearly  indicated.<br \/>\nIt was, however, pointed out that the yarn shop as such\t was<br \/>\nnot  introduced as a partner and the agreement was in  truth<br \/>\nbetween the three major members out of those who constituted<br \/>\nthe  yarn shop and four outsiders.  Each of them had  signed<br \/>\nthe  application  and  the  covenants  of  the\t partnership<br \/>\nagreement bind the partners individually.  The indication in<br \/>\nthe deed of partnership that three of them held qua the yarn<br \/>\nshop  a\t certain  relation did not affect  their  status  as<br \/>\npartners of the appellant-firm individually.  The  principle<br \/>\nlaid down in this case applies also to the present case and,<br \/>\nfor  the  reasons  already  expressed,\twe  hold  that\t the<br \/>\nassessee-firm was entitled to. be registered under s. 26A of<br \/>\nthe  Act  for the assessment year 1953-54 and  the  question<br \/>\nreferred  to  the  High\t Court\tmust  be  answered  in\t the<br \/>\naffirmative and in favour of the assessee-firm.<br \/>\nWe  accordingly allow this appeal with costs in\t this  Court<br \/>\nand the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>V. P. S.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1004<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. &#8230; on 28 October, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 448, 1967 SCR (1) 998 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Ramaswami, V. PETITIONER: PAREKH WADILAL JIVANBHAI Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M. P. NAGPURAND BHANDARA, NAGPUR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/10\/1966 BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. ... on 28 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. ... on 28 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1966-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-09T17:36:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. &#8230; on 28 October, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-09T17:36:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2125,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966\",\"name\":\"Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. ... on 28 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-09T17:36:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. &#8230; on 28 October, 1966\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. ... on 28 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. ... on 28 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-09T17:36:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. &#8230; on 28 October, 1966","datePublished":"1966-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-09T17:36:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966"},"wordCount":2125,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966","name":"Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. ... on 28 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-09T17:36:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-wadilal-jivanbhai-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-m-p-on-28-october-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M. P. &#8230; on 28 October, 1966"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123899","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123899"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123899\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123899"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123899"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}