<?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>1968 (4) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7327</link>
    <description>A partnership deed admitting minors only to the benefits of partnership was construed as valid for renewal of registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court read the deed as a whole and applied the principle that a minor cannot be made a full partner. Clauses about capital contribution, inspection and signing of accounts, and operation of bank accounts did not, on proper construction, convert the minors into partners; they were capable of being read as acts through guardians or as referring to competent adult partners. The clause excluding the minors from liability for losses was decisive and confirmed that they were not personally liable as full partners, so the firm was entitled to renewal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (4) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7327</link>
      <description>A partnership deed admitting minors only to the benefits of partnership was construed as valid for renewal of registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court read the deed as a whole and applied the principle that a minor cannot be made a full partner. Clauses about capital contribution, inspection and signing of accounts, and operation of bank accounts did not, on proper construction, convert the minors into partners; they were capable of being read as acts through guardians or as referring to competent adult partners. The clause excluding the minors from liability for losses was decisive and confirmed that they were not personally liable as full partners, so the firm was entitled to renewal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>