<?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 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7926</link>
    <description>A partnership deed is construed as a whole, and an express clause admitting a minor only to the benefits of partnership prevails over other provisions. On that basis, the minor was not treated as a full partner, and the guardian&#039;s consent on the minor&#039;s behalf did not invalidate the arrangement under section 30 of the Partnership Act. The deed and registration application also satisfied the requirement of disclosing individual profit and loss shares under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because the shares were substantially disclosed and any omission could be worked out from the instrument itself. The firm was therefore entitled to registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (9) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7926</link>
      <description>A partnership deed is construed as a whole, and an express clause admitting a minor only to the benefits of partnership prevails over other provisions. On that basis, the minor was not treated as a full partner, and the guardian&#039;s consent on the minor&#039;s behalf did not invalidate the arrangement under section 30 of the Partnership Act. The deed and registration application also satisfied the requirement of disclosing individual profit and loss shares under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because the shares were substantially disclosed and any omission could be worked out from the instrument itself. The firm was therefore entitled to registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>