<?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 (1) TMI 62 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276168</link>
    <description>A deed of arrangement must satisfy the core partnership requirements of mutual profit and loss sharing and authority for each partner to act as agent of all. Here, the instrument vested full control and final decision-making in one partner, and it prohibited the others from carrying on business, raising loans, or pledging the firm&#039;s interest without his authority. On that construction, the other persons could not act as agents of all the partners, so the arrangement did not constitute a valid partnership for income-tax registration. The firm was therefore not entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the answer was against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2018 13:07:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (1) TMI 62 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276168</link>
      <description>A deed of arrangement must satisfy the core partnership requirements of mutual profit and loss sharing and authority for each partner to act as agent of all. Here, the instrument vested full control and final decision-making in one partner, and it prohibited the others from carrying on business, raising loans, or pledging the firm&#039;s interest without his authority. On that construction, the other persons could not act as agents of all the partners, so the arrangement did not constitute a valid partnership for income-tax registration. The firm was therefore not entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the answer was against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>