<?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>1961 (4) TMI 120 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200587</link>
    <description>The note applies the legal tests for an association of persons-volition (actual or represented), unity of purpose and an object of producing income-and concludes the first-year assessment lacked these indicia and was invalid, while subsequent assessments met the tests because the firm&#039;s participation, profit sharing and continuing management evidenced agreement for joint management, so those assessments are valid. It also explains that a person connected with an association may be treated as its principal officer where statutory notice and contemporaneous awareness satisfy the definition, and therefore the petitioner was properly regarded as principal officer for the association-based assessments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:13:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 120 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200587</link>
      <description>The note applies the legal tests for an association of persons-volition (actual or represented), unity of purpose and an object of producing income-and concludes the first-year assessment lacked these indicia and was invalid, while subsequent assessments met the tests because the firm&#039;s participation, profit sharing and continuing management evidenced agreement for joint management, so those assessments are valid. It also explains that a person connected with an association may be treated as its principal officer where statutory notice and contemporaneous awareness satisfy the definition, and therefore the petitioner was properly regarded as principal officer for the association-based assessments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>