<?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>1964 (10) TMI 100 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198475</link>
    <description>The plaintiff was declared the sole proprietor of a boarding house business despite an arrangement to circumvent service rules and evade income tax. The courts upheld the plaintiff&#039;s title to the business, distinguishing between enforcing property rights and illegal transactions. The plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the business, as the initial illegality did not affect his claim. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was granted possession without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2018 09:42:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (10) TMI 100 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198475</link>
      <description>The plaintiff was declared the sole proprietor of a boarding house business despite an arrangement to circumvent service rules and evade income tax. The courts upheld the plaintiff&#039;s title to the business, distinguishing between enforcing property rights and illegal transactions. The plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the business, as the initial illegality did not affect his claim. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was granted possession without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>