<?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 (7) TMI 28 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9074</link>
    <description>Property contributed by partners as capital becomes partnership property under the Partnership Act, and a dissolution clause governing how that asset will vest on winding up does not change its character during the firm&#039;s continuance. On that basis, the Palace contributed to the firm was treated as an asset of the partnership, not merely a right of use. Depreciation was therefore allowable to the firm under the income-tax provision considered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (7) TMI 28 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9074</link>
      <description>Property contributed by partners as capital becomes partnership property under the Partnership Act, and a dissolution clause governing how that asset will vest on winding up does not change its character during the firm&#039;s continuance. On that basis, the Palace contributed to the firm was treated as an asset of the partnership, not merely a right of use. Depreciation was therefore allowable to the firm under the income-tax provision considered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>