<?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>1971 (2) TMI 37 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8664</link>
    <description>Registration under section 26A is available only to a genuine partnership satisfying the statutory requirements. In a reference under section 66, the High Court&#039;s role is advisory, and the Tribunal&#039;s factual findings bind unless unsupported by material, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations. On the facts, the Tribunal relied cumulatively on the original conduct of the business by one individual, his continued control of contracts and management, the lack of real participation by the alleged partners, the implausibility of the explanation for their introduction, inadequate capital contribution, and absence of genuine profit division. Those circumstances supported the finding that the firm was not genuine and that the business belonged to one person, so registration was not admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 17:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (2) TMI 37 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8664</link>
      <description>Registration under section 26A is available only to a genuine partnership satisfying the statutory requirements. In a reference under section 66, the High Court&#039;s role is advisory, and the Tribunal&#039;s factual findings bind unless unsupported by material, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations. On the facts, the Tribunal relied cumulatively on the original conduct of the business by one individual, his continued control of contracts and management, the lack of real participation by the alleged partners, the implausibility of the explanation for their introduction, inadequate capital contribution, and absence of genuine profit division. Those circumstances supported the finding that the firm was not genuine and that the business belonged to one person, so registration was not admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>