<?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>1974 (2) TMI 3 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9081</link>
    <description>A partnership deed is not rendered invalid merely because the recital of the execution date conflicts with the stamp-purchase date or the later date on which the partners actually signed it. The instrument must be read as a whole, and an incorrect date recital is not decisive where surrounding facts show that the deed was executed after the stamps were purchased and the partnership was genuine. On that footing, refusal of firm registration on this ground was unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (2) TMI 3 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9081</link>
      <description>A partnership deed is not rendered invalid merely because the recital of the execution date conflicts with the stamp-purchase date or the later date on which the partners actually signed it. The instrument must be read as a whole, and an incorrect date recital is not decisive where surrounding facts show that the deed was executed after the stamps were purchased and the partnership was genuine. On that footing, refusal of firm registration on this ground was unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>