<?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>2001 (12) TMI 214 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69886</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, confirming that Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act was inapplicable as there was no dissolution of the firm, only a reconstitution. The retirement of partners did not result in a transfer of property, and the firm continued its business with the remaining partners. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:54:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 214 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69886</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, confirming that Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act was inapplicable as there was no dissolution of the firm, only a reconstitution. The retirement of partners did not result in a transfer of property, and the firm continued its business with the remaining partners. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>