<?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>1969 (9) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7632</link>
    <description>For partnership registration purposes, only persons who actually enter the partnership contract are counted as partners. A Hindu undivided family cannot be treated as a partner merely because a coparcener signs as karta, returns income in that status, or shares profits with family members. A nomination clause that substitutes a successor on a partner&#039;s death also does not bring the heirs into the firm as partners. On the stated facts, the partnership deeds showed no clear excess over the statutory partner limit, and the Revenue did not prove any infringement of that prohibition; the firm was therefore entitled to registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (9) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7632</link>
      <description>For partnership registration purposes, only persons who actually enter the partnership contract are counted as partners. A Hindu undivided family cannot be treated as a partner merely because a coparcener signs as karta, returns income in that status, or shares profits with family members. A nomination clause that substitutes a successor on a partner&#039;s death also does not bring the heirs into the firm as partners. On the stated facts, the partnership deeds showed no clear excess over the statutory partner limit, and the Revenue did not prove any infringement of that prohibition; the firm was therefore entitled to registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>