<?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>1977 (7) TMI 84 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66737</link>
    <description>Registration of a firm under the Income-tax Act cannot be refused merely because an excise licence was allegedly used in breach of licence conditions, because some partners did not appear, or because one partner was suspected to be benami of another. The operative test is whether the firm itself is genuine and otherwise eligible under the income-tax provisions. A breach attributable to the licence-holder, rather than the firm, does not by itself defeat registration, and partial non-appearance of partners is not conclusive of non-genuineness. The commentary therefore treats firm registration as dependent on the firm&#039;s own legal status, not on collateral excise irregularities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:01:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=105172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (7) TMI 84 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66737</link>
      <description>Registration of a firm under the Income-tax Act cannot be refused merely because an excise licence was allegedly used in breach of licence conditions, because some partners did not appear, or because one partner was suspected to be benami of another. The operative test is whether the firm itself is genuine and otherwise eligible under the income-tax provisions. A breach attributable to the licence-holder, rather than the firm, does not by itself defeat registration, and partial non-appearance of partners is not conclusive of non-genuineness. The commentary therefore treats firm registration as dependent on the firm&#039;s own legal status, not on collateral excise irregularities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>