<?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>1986 (10) TMI 3 - MYSORE High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6799</link>
    <description>Renewal of a firm&#039;s registration for the 1961-62 assessment year, treated as part of assessment proceedings under the repealing and saving provisions and the Removal of Difficulties Order, had to be governed by the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the prescribed rules. The renewal application was therefore not to be tested by section 26A of the 1922 Act. The prescribed continuation form under section 184(7) required only a declaration of earlier registration and no change in constitution or profit-sharing ratios; it did not require proof that the previous year&#039;s profits had been fully distributed among partners. The Tribunal erred in applying the 1922 Act conditions, and the assessee was entitled to renewal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45873" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (10) TMI 3 - MYSORE High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6799</link>
      <description>Renewal of a firm&#039;s registration for the 1961-62 assessment year, treated as part of assessment proceedings under the repealing and saving provisions and the Removal of Difficulties Order, had to be governed by the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the prescribed rules. The renewal application was therefore not to be tested by section 26A of the 1922 Act. The prescribed continuation form under section 184(7) required only a declaration of earlier registration and no change in constitution or profit-sharing ratios; it did not require proof that the previous year&#039;s profits had been fully distributed among partners. The Tribunal erred in applying the 1922 Act conditions, and the assessee was entitled to renewal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>