<?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>1987 (2) TMI 144 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71638</link>
    <description>A partnership formed to operate a liquor business in breach of excise licence conditions was treated as void because the licence was personal to the licence-holder and the rules required partners to be disclosed and recognised for licence purposes. The deed and surrounding facts showed that additional partners were admitted after the wholesale licence was obtained, including a family member whom the Government had required the licence-holder to dissociate from the retail business. Because the arrangement was designed to exploit the licence in a manner not permitted by law, it fell within section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as an agreement defeating the provisions of law. The partnership was therefore not entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:37:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 144 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71638</link>
      <description>A partnership formed to operate a liquor business in breach of excise licence conditions was treated as void because the licence was personal to the licence-holder and the rules required partners to be disclosed and recognised for licence purposes. The deed and surrounding facts showed that additional partners were admitted after the wholesale licence was obtained, including a family member whom the Government had required the licence-holder to dissociate from the retail business. Because the arrangement was designed to exploit the licence in a manner not permitted by law, it fell within section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as an agreement defeating the provisions of law. The partnership was therefore not entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71638</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>