<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (11) TMI 173 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62556</link>
    <description>Registration of a firm under the Income-tax Act, 1961 depends on a valid partnership instrument, a proper application, and a firm that is genuine and constituted as stated in the deed. A refusal cannot rest merely on the Revenue&#039;s assertion that profits were not distributed in accordance with the registration form unless there is material showing that the partners were bound to share that income and that the declaration was false. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court ruling cited by the Revenue because it arose under the 1922 Act and involved renewal of registration on an admitted incorrect certificate. On the facts noted, there was no basis to treat the firm as nongenuine, and registration was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 173 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62556</link>
      <description>Registration of a firm under the Income-tax Act, 1961 depends on a valid partnership instrument, a proper application, and a firm that is genuine and constituted as stated in the deed. A refusal cannot rest merely on the Revenue&#039;s assertion that profits were not distributed in accordance with the registration form unless there is material showing that the partners were bound to share that income and that the declaration was false. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court ruling cited by the Revenue because it arose under the 1922 Act and involved renewal of registration on an admitted incorrect certificate. On the facts noted, there was no basis to treat the firm as nongenuine, and registration was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>