<?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>1972 (9) TMI 27 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8814</link>
    <description>An unregistered partnership carrying on agricultural operations and deriving agricultural income was treated as a separate assessable entity under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, because the definition of &quot;person&quot; was inclusive and section 10(2)(c) contemplated assessment of an unregistered firm. The partnership deed and conduct showed joint exploitation of the lands and division of profits, bringing the arrangement within the concept of a firm under the Partnership Act. The plea that the parties were tenants-in-common assessable only under section 3(3) was rejected, since the facts negatived the incidents of tenancy-in-common and showed a partnership instead. The income was therefore assessable in the hands of the firm, not as co-owners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (9) TMI 27 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8814</link>
      <description>An unregistered partnership carrying on agricultural operations and deriving agricultural income was treated as a separate assessable entity under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, because the definition of &quot;person&quot; was inclusive and section 10(2)(c) contemplated assessment of an unregistered firm. The partnership deed and conduct showed joint exploitation of the lands and division of profits, bringing the arrangement within the concept of a firm under the Partnership Act. The plea that the parties were tenants-in-common assessable only under section 3(3) was rejected, since the facts negatived the incidents of tenancy-in-common and showed a partnership instead. The income was therefore assessable in the hands of the firm, not as co-owners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>