<?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>1982 (5) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64556</link>
    <description>A partnership firm is entitled to registration where the deed, read as a whole, shows a definite agreement to share profits and losses and the relationship reflects mutual agency. Restrictions on one partner&#039;s capital contribution, banking functions, or management powers were treated as internal arrangements that did not destroy the partnership. The settled test is the real nature of the relationship, not labels such as paid partner or salaried partner. Recognition of the partner in earlier years also supported genuineness, and registration could not be refused on mere suspicion. On that basis, the firm was treated as a genuine partnership entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:27:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (5) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64556</link>
      <description>A partnership firm is entitled to registration where the deed, read as a whole, shows a definite agreement to share profits and losses and the relationship reflects mutual agency. Restrictions on one partner&#039;s capital contribution, banking functions, or management powers were treated as internal arrangements that did not destroy the partnership. The settled test is the real nature of the relationship, not labels such as paid partner or salaried partner. Recognition of the partner in earlier years also supported genuineness, and registration could not be refused on mere suspicion. On that basis, the firm was treated as a genuine partnership entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>