<?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>1960 (2) TMI 66 - Patna High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272844</link>
    <description>A partnership carrying on mica business was treated as valid where one partner held the requisite dealer&#039;s licence and the firm had no separate licence. The Bihar Mica Act did not expressly require a partnership, as such, to obtain an independent licence, because a firm is not a legal person unless the statute says otherwise. The Court noted that the Act allowed endorsement of other partners&#039; names but did not make such endorsement mandatory in every case. Where the licensed partner was authorised by the partnership deed to conduct mica transactions on behalf of the firm, the arrangement was not illegal and the firm remained entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2018 13:23:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (2) TMI 66 - Patna High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272844</link>
      <description>A partnership carrying on mica business was treated as valid where one partner held the requisite dealer&#039;s licence and the firm had no separate licence. The Bihar Mica Act did not expressly require a partnership, as such, to obtain an independent licence, because a firm is not a legal person unless the statute says otherwise. The Court noted that the Act allowed endorsement of other partners&#039; names but did not make such endorsement mandatory in every case. Where the licensed partner was authorised by the partnership deed to conduct mica transactions on behalf of the firm, the arrangement was not illegal and the firm remained entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>