<?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>1983 (3) TMI 126 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67851</link>
    <description>A partnership remains valid where there is an agreement to share profits and carry on business through mutual agency, even if every partner does not personally participate or contribute capital. The lady partner&#039;s capital contribution, profit credit in the firm&#039;s books, and treatment of that capital as her absolute property supported genuineness; later gifts were only an application of income. The fact that the partners were close relatives, or that one partner managed the business and borrowings stood in her name, did not by itself show a sham firm. Cancellation of continuation of registration under section 186(1) was therefore unjustified and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:38:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (3) TMI 126 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67851</link>
      <description>A partnership remains valid where there is an agreement to share profits and carry on business through mutual agency, even if every partner does not personally participate or contribute capital. The lady partner&#039;s capital contribution, profit credit in the firm&#039;s books, and treatment of that capital as her absolute property supported genuineness; later gifts were only an application of income. The fact that the partners were close relatives, or that one partner managed the business and borrowings stood in her name, did not by itself show a sham firm. Cancellation of continuation of registration under section 186(1) was therefore unjustified and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>