<?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 128 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276916</link>
    <description>Registration under section 26A turned on whether the partnership deed and application truly reflected the constitution of the firm and the shares agreed among all partners. A separate benami or beneficial ownership arrangement affecting one partner&#039;s share did not, by itself, make the instrument false or unregistrable unless it formed part of the firm&#039;s own agreement. The controlling test was whether there was any agreement among all partners that the share standing in one partner&#039;s name really belonged to another; absent such a finding, registration could not be refused merely because legal and beneficial ownership diverged in respect of one share.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:11:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 128 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276916</link>
      <description>Registration under section 26A turned on whether the partnership deed and application truly reflected the constitution of the firm and the shares agreed among all partners. A separate benami or beneficial ownership arrangement affecting one partner&#039;s share did not, by itself, make the instrument false or unregistrable unless it formed part of the firm&#039;s own agreement. The controlling test was whether there was any agreement among all partners that the share standing in one partner&#039;s name really belonged to another; absent such a finding, registration could not be refused merely because legal and beneficial ownership diverged in respect of one share.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>