<?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>1952 (3) TMI 49 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276190</link>
    <description>A partnership in law requires both an agreement to share profits and a mutual agency relationship under which the business is carried on by all or any partners for all. The partnership deed here allowed the father to exclude one or both sons from management, or to place management with another person, so an excluded son had no right of agency in the business. It also left to the father whether profits would be shared at all, when they would be shared, and to what extent, which negatived any real agreement to share profits. On the deed itself, no partnership in law was formed and registration under section 26A was rightly refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2018 14:14:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (3) TMI 49 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276190</link>
      <description>A partnership in law requires both an agreement to share profits and a mutual agency relationship under which the business is carried on by all or any partners for all. The partnership deed here allowed the father to exclude one or both sons from management, or to place management with another person, so an excluded son had no right of agency in the business. It also left to the father whether profits would be shared at all, when they would be shared, and to what extent, which negatived any real agreement to share profits. On the deed itself, no partnership in law was formed and registration under section 26A was rightly refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>