<?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>1962 (7) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168711</link>
    <description>A partnership is treated as reconstituted, not dissolved, where retiring partners withdraw and the continuing partners take over the business, assets and liabilities without extinction of the enterprise. On that basis, the firm was regarded as continuing with only a change in constitution. Registration was unavailable for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1955-56 because the statutory requirement of division or credit of profits and losses to partners was not satisfied, but it was available for 1956-57 once the defect was cured. Loss carry-forward succeeded for 1952-53 because continuity of the firm was maintained, but the claim failed for 1955-56 due to procedural default.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:48:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (7) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168711</link>
      <description>A partnership is treated as reconstituted, not dissolved, where retiring partners withdraw and the continuing partners take over the business, assets and liabilities without extinction of the enterprise. On that basis, the firm was regarded as continuing with only a change in constitution. Registration was unavailable for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1955-56 because the statutory requirement of division or credit of profits and losses to partners was not satisfied, but it was available for 1956-57 once the defect was cured. Loss carry-forward succeeded for 1952-53 because continuity of the firm was maintained, but the claim failed for 1955-56 due to procedural default.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>