<?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>1950 (5) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188541</link>
    <description>Assessment under the Excess Profits Tax Act operates independently of income-tax treatment, so acceptance of partial partition and discontinuance for income-tax purposes did not bind the Excess Profits Tax Officer. A partial partition followed by formation of two partnership firms was treated as a &quot;transaction&quot; within the anti-avoidance provision, because the term was read broadly to cover arrangements producing the relevant tax consequence. On the facts, the continuation of the same business through new firms, funded from family assets and reflected in the profit-sharing pattern, supported the finding that the main purpose was avoidance or reduction of excess profits tax. The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2016 12:23:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (5) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188541</link>
      <description>Assessment under the Excess Profits Tax Act operates independently of income-tax treatment, so acceptance of partial partition and discontinuance for income-tax purposes did not bind the Excess Profits Tax Officer. A partial partition followed by formation of two partnership firms was treated as a &quot;transaction&quot; within the anti-avoidance provision, because the term was read broadly to cover arrangements producing the relevant tax consequence. On the facts, the continuation of the same business through new firms, funded from family assets and reflected in the profit-sharing pattern, supported the finding that the main purpose was avoidance or reduction of excess profits tax. The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>