Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
SC upheld the jurisdictional bar under Section 69(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, rendering the suit by partners of an unregistered partnership firm for money recovery non-maintainable. The Court conclusively determined that since the partnership firm was unregistered, the plaintiffs were legally precluded from filing a suit against another partner for monetary recovery. The High Court's order was affirmed, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, establishing that an unregistered partnership firm cannot pursue such legal proceedings without first registering the partnership.
SC upheld the jurisdictional bar under Section 69(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, rendering the suit by partners of an unregistered partnership firm for money recovery non-maintainable. The Court conclusively determined that since the partnership firm was unregistered, the plaintiffs were legally precluded from filing a suit against another partner for monetary recovery. The High Court's order was affirmed, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, establishing that an unregistered partnership firm cannot pursue such legal proceedings without first registering the partnership.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
