Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
