Our firm was a registered firm before 1993. Must we still produce a certified copy of the deed to be assessed as a firm?
Yes. The Kerala High Court held that even a firm which enjoyed registration up to assessment year 1992-93 must furnish a certified copy of the instrument of partnership to be assessed as a firm for any year from 1993-94 onwards, and that the consequence of non-production is disallowance under s.185 of interest, remuneration and bonus paid to partners. Once the status is granted on that footing, s.184(3) carries it forward without further production until there is a change in constitution, when s.184(4) requires the revised instrument with the return. On the facts the Court gave a limited concession, remitting the matter for verification and directing that status as a firm be granted as a special case if the certified copy had in fact been produced when the assessment was taken up.
Decided by the High Court (C.N. Ramachandran Nair J and V.K. Mohanan J) on 2009-09-15, reported as I.T.A. Nos. 454 and 457 of 2009 (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam). No law report citation appeared on the copy retrieved.. It bears on section 184, section 184(2), section 184(3), section 184(4), section 185 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and Deductions & Disallowances matters.
This is the counterweight to the Calcutta view in S.R. Batliboi. It states the mandatory reading of s.184 and s.185 and, importantly, expressly leaves open the question whether production after the return but before the assessment is completed amounts to compliance. If you are relying on late production, this is the case that says the point is undecided rather than settled in your favour.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee was a firm at Trivandrum which had been assessed as a registered firm up to assessment year 1992-93. For assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the first years under the scheme substituted with effect from 1 April 1993, it did not furnish a certified copy of the instrument of partnership along with its returns. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to be assessed in the status of a firm. Before the High Court the assessee relied on a finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the certified copy had been produced before the officer when the assessments were taken up; the Standing Counsel for the Revenue, defending the finding of the Tribunal, argued that there was no evidence of the production of the certified copy before the Officer when the assessment was taken up and that the assessee itself did not have such a case in the grounds raised by it (para 5).
The appeals were disposed of. Production of a certified copy of the instrument of partnership is mandatory for claiming assessment in the status of a firm for any assessment year from 1993-94 onwards, irrespective of whether the assessee was assessed as a registered firm up to 1993-94, and the findings of the Tribunal were upheld in principle. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify whether the assessee had produced the certified copy when the assessment was taken up and, if so, to grant the status of a firm as a special case for 1993-94, with the benefit following for 1994-95 unless there was a change in constitution; if it had not in fact been produced, the assessee is not entitled to the status of a firm for either year and the Tribunal's order stands confirmed.
The Court read s.184(2) as requiring a certified copy of the instrument of partnership before the status of a firm can be given for any year from 1993-94, and s.184(3) as continuing that status for subsequent years without further production only where it rests on an assessment made after production under s.184(2), and not on registration granted before 1993-94. After a change in constitution, s.184(4) requires the revised instrument to be produced with the return for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the change took place. The consequence of non-production is that s.185 disallows the firm's claims for interest, remuneration, bonus and similar payments to partners. On the facts, the Court declined to decide whether production after the return but before completion of the assessment is sufficient compliance, and gave relief only because 1993-94 was the first year after the amendment and because s.184(3) creates confusion about whether the continued status rests on an assessment as a firm from 1993-94 onwards or on registration granted for an earlier year.
We, therefore, hold that the production of certified copy of instrument of partnership is mandatory for claiming assessment in the status of a firm for any assessment year commencing from 1993-94 onwards irrespective of whether such assessee was assessed as a registered firm up to 1993-94.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes. The Kerala High Court held that even a firm which enjoyed registration up to assessment year 1992-93 must furnish a certified copy of the instrument of partnership to be assessed as a firm for any year from 1993-94 onwards, and that the consequence of non-production is disallowance under s.185 of interest, remuneration and bonus paid to partners. Once the status is granted on that footing, s.184(3) carries it forward without further production until there is a change in constitution, when s.184(4) requires the revised instrument with the return. On the facts the Court gave a limited concession, remitting the matter for verification and directing that status as a firm be granted as a special case if the certified copy had in fact been produced when the assessment was taken up. This was decided by the High Court (C.N. Ramachandran Nair J and V.K. Mohanan J) and bears on section 184, section 184(2), section 184(3), section 184(4), section 185 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as I.T.A. Nos. 454 and 457 of 2009 (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam). No law report citation appeared on the copy retrieved.. This is the counterweight to the Calcutta view in S.R. Batliboi. It states the mandatory reading of s.184 and s.185 and, importantly, expressly leaves open the question whether production after the return but before the assessment is completed amounts to compliance. If you are relying on late production, this is the case that says the point is undecided rather than settled in your favour. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Treat production of the certified copy as a substantive requirement, not a formality, and file it with the return.
The assessee was a firm at Trivandrum which had been assessed as a registered firm up to assessment year 1992-93. For assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the first years under the scheme substituted with effect from 1 April 1993, it did not furnish a certified copy of the instrument of partnership along with its returns. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to be assessed in the status of a firm. Before the High Court the assessee relied on a finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the certified copy had been produced before the officer when the assessments were taken up; the Standing Counsel for the Revenue, defending the finding of the Tribunal, argued that there was no evidence of the production of the certified copy before the Officer when the assessment was taken up and that the assessee itself did not have such a case in the grounds raised by it (para 5). The matter was decided on 2009-09-15 by the High Court (C.N. Ramachandran Nair J and V.K. Mohanan J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeals were disposed of. Production of a certified copy of the instrument of partnership is mandatory for claiming assessment in the status of a firm for any assessment year from 1993-94 onwards, irrespective of whether the assessee was assessed as a registered firm up to 1993-94, and the findings of the Tribunal were upheld in principle. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify whether the assessee had produced the certified copy when the assessment was taken up and, if so, to grant the status of a firm as a special case for 1993-94, with the benefit following for 1994-95 unless there was a change in constitution; if it had not in fact been produced, the assessee is not entitled to the status of a firm for either year and the Tribunal's order stands confirmed.
The Court read s.184(2) as requiring a certified copy of the instrument of partnership before the status of a firm can be given for any year from 1993-94, and s.184(3) as continuing that status for subsequent years without further production only where it rests on an assessment made after production under s.184(2), and not on registration granted before 1993-94. After a change in constitution, s.184(4) requires the revised instrument to be produced with the return for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the change took place. The consequence of non-production is that s.185 disallows the firm's claims for interest, remuneration, bonus and similar payments to partners. On the facts, the Court declined to decide whether production after the return but before completion of the assessment is sufficient compliance, and gave relief only because 1993-94 was the first year after the amendment and because s.184(3) creates confusion about whether the continued status rests on an assessment as a firm from 1993-94 onwards or on registration granted for an earlier year. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "We, therefore, hold that the production of certified copy of instrument of partnership is mandatory for claiming assessment in the status of a firm for any assessment year commencing from 1993-94 onwards irrespective of whether such assessee was assessed as a registered firm up to 1993-94."
It was decided by the High Court on 2009-09-15 and is reported as I.T.A. Nos. 454 and 457 of 2009 (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam). No law report citation appeared on the copy retrieved.. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 184, section 184(2), section 184(3), section 184(4), section 185, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeals were disposed of. Production of a certified copy of the instrument of partnership is mandatory for claiming assessment in the status of a firm for any assessment year from 1993-94 onwards, irrespective of whether the assessee was assessed as a registered firm up to 1993-94, and the findings of the Tribunal were upheld in principle. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify whether the assessee had produced the certified copy when the assessment was taken up and, if so, to grant the status of a firm as a special case for 1993-94, with the benefit following for 1994-95 unless there was a change in constitution; if it had not in fact been produced, the assessee is not entitled to the status of a firm for either year and the Tribunal's order stands confirmed. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and Deductions & Disallowances matters, on section 184, section 184(2), section 184(3), section 184(4), section 185 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by C.N. Ramachandran Nair J and V.K. Mohanan J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. After any change in constitution, file the revised instrument with the return for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the change occurred. Section 184(3) does not carry the old status past a change. If the copy was produced late, get the fact and date of production on the assessment record. The relief here depended on the Commissioner (Appeals) having recorded that the deed was produced when the assessment was taken up. Do not treat the concession in this case as a general rule. The Court granted it as a special case because 1993-94 was the first year under the amended scheme and s.184(3) was confusing, and it declined to decide whether late production is sufficient compliance. Quantify the exposure before you argue. Under s.185 the disallowance covers interest, salary, bonus, commission and remuneration paid to partners, not merely the remuneration.
High Courts differ on this point. The Kerala High Court's reading, that production of the certified copy is mandatory, sits against the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. S.R. Batliboi & Associates, I.T.A. No. 190 of 2009, decided 24 February 2015, which held that s.185 read with s.184, although worded in emphatic terms, is not intended to be mandatory where the instrument was produced during the assessment. The difference is narrower than it first appears, because this Court expressly declined to decide whether production before completion of the assessment is sufficient compliance. No Supreme Court decision resolving the point was located. Section 184 and s.185 were not affected by the Finance Act 2021 partnership amendments. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The operative portion of the judgment, from 'In our view' to the end, was retrieved and read verbatim, together with paragraph 5, which records the Standing Counsel's argument for the Revenue; the rest of the earlier narrative was read in summarised form. The judgment does not state the amount disallowed. It decides two things that should not be run together: that production of the certified copy is mandatory in principle, and that on these particular facts, 1993-94 being the first year under the amended scheme, the assessee should get the benefit as a special case if production during the assessment can be verified. The Court expressly said it did not propose to decide whether production after the return but before completion of the assessment is sufficient compliance, so the case is not authority either way on that question. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeals were disposed of. Production of a certified copy of the instrument of partnership is mandatory for claiming assessment in the status of a firm for any assessment year from 1993-94 onwards, irrespective of whether the assessee was assessed as a registered firm up to 1993-94, and the findings of the Tribunal were upheld in principle. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify whether the assessee had produced the certified copy when the assessment was taken up and, if so, to grant the status of a firm as a special case for 1993-94, with the benefit following for 1994-95 unless there was a change in constitution; if it had not in fact been produced, the assessee is not entitled to the status of a firm for either year and the Tribunal's order stands confirmed.
TaxSphere, “M/s Bhaskar & Co v CIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/bhaskar-and-co-v-cit-184-certified-copy-mandatory/ (validity last checked 2026-09-07)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The AO has invoked section 185 because of a defect in the partnership deed filed with our return. What exactly do we lose, and does the partner get any relief?
The revised partnership deed was not filed with the return but was produced during the assessment. Does s.185 still disallow the partners' remuneration?
Our partnership deed says partners' salary will be as mutually agreed from time to time, and we passed a resolution fixing the amounts. The officer has disallowed the whole remuneration. Can he?
The officer refused you firm status because a document was missing that the Explanation to s.139(9) does not mention. Was he entitled to do that without giving you a chance to put it right?
