<?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>1981 (6) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64145</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT (Appeals) Meerut&#039;s decision to conduct separate assessments for a partnership firm that underwent a change in its constitution. The Tribunal clarified that the income of the old firm cannot be clubbed with the income of the reconstituted firm for assessment purposes, in line with the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court. Separate assessment orders were deemed necessary for each period, affirming the distinct nature of the old and reconstituted firms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2011 10:57:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (6) TMI 60 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64145</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT (Appeals) Meerut&#039;s decision to conduct separate assessments for a partnership firm that underwent a change in its constitution. The Tribunal clarified that the income of the old firm cannot be clubbed with the income of the reconstituted firm for assessment purposes, in line with the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court. Separate assessment orders were deemed necessary for each period, affirming the distinct nature of the old and reconstituted firms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64145</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>