<?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>2010 (9) TMI 766 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207462</link>
    <description>A partnership formed in breach of the Andhra Pradesh excise licensing regime was unlawful and could not be recognised as a valid firm for income-tax purposes. The excise statute and rules barred inclusion of partners without prior licensing permission, and a partnership created in contravention of that prohibition was opposed to public policy under the Contract Act. The amendment to sections 184 and 185 of the Income-tax Act, which removed the registered/unregistered firm distinction, did not prevent the tax authority from examining whether the firm was constituted in accordance with law. The claimed firm status and related deductions were therefore denied, and the Revenue was entitled to assess the assessees otherwise than as firms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 766 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207462</link>
      <description>A partnership formed in breach of the Andhra Pradesh excise licensing regime was unlawful and could not be recognised as a valid firm for income-tax purposes. The excise statute and rules barred inclusion of partners without prior licensing permission, and a partnership created in contravention of that prohibition was opposed to public policy under the Contract Act. The amendment to sections 184 and 185 of the Income-tax Act, which removed the registered/unregistered firm distinction, did not prevent the tax authority from examining whether the firm was constituted in accordance with law. The claimed firm status and related deductions were therefore denied, and the Revenue was entitled to assess the assessees otherwise than as firms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>