<?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>1965 (10) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199291</link>
    <description>Registration of a firm under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 depends on the firm being constituted by an instrument of partnership specifying the partners&#039; individual shares and on compliance with the prescribed application procedure. Where those statutory requirements are met, registration cannot be refused merely because some partners received salary or because profits were later distributed in an internal manner different from the profit-sharing clause. The Income-tax Officer may decline registration only if he is not satisfied that the firm existed as shown in the instrument or that the application was properly made. Refusal of registration was therefore not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:46:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (10) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199291</link>
      <description>Registration of a firm under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 depends on the firm being constituted by an instrument of partnership specifying the partners&#039; individual shares and on compliance with the prescribed application procedure. Where those statutory requirements are met, registration cannot be refused merely because some partners received salary or because profits were later distributed in an internal manner different from the profit-sharing clause. The Income-tax Officer may decline registration only if he is not satisfied that the firm existed as shown in the instrument or that the application was properly made. Refusal of registration was therefore not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>