<?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>1964 (12) TMI 41 -  ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168694</link>
    <description>Renewal of firm registration could not be refused merely because losses were not shown through separate personal accounts, where the firm was genuine, previously registered, and the renewal application was in the prescribed form with the partnership deed and a certificate showing division of losses by shares. The statutory scheme required a valid instrument, a proper application, and allocation of profits or losses in accordance with the deed; it did not prescribe any particular accounting method in the absence of such a term in the deed. On those facts, the department had no basis to deny renewal, and registration ought to have been continued for the assessment year 1959-60.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:08:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (12) TMI 41 -  ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168694</link>
      <description>Renewal of firm registration could not be refused merely because losses were not shown through separate personal accounts, where the firm was genuine, previously registered, and the renewal application was in the prescribed form with the partnership deed and a certificate showing division of losses by shares. The statutory scheme required a valid instrument, a proper application, and allocation of profits or losses in accordance with the deed; it did not prescribe any particular accounting method in the absence of such a term in the deed. On those facts, the department had no basis to deny renewal, and registration ought to have been continued for the assessment year 1959-60.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>