<?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>1956 (9) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276932</link>
    <description>Partition followed by the assessee&#039;s request for separate assessment and his own statement that the earlier family business had ended supported the view that a fresh business had commenced; section 8(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act therefore treated the post-partition activity as a new business carried on by different persons. The timing of the partnership deeds, the assessee&#039;s continuing control, financing of the ventures, routing of transactions through the head office, and branch-like arrangement of the businesses supplied material to infer that the two partnerships were constituted mainly to avoid or reduce excess profits tax. Both conclusions were upheld against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:27:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (9) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276932</link>
      <description>Partition followed by the assessee&#039;s request for separate assessment and his own statement that the earlier family business had ended supported the view that a fresh business had commenced; section 8(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act therefore treated the post-partition activity as a new business carried on by different persons. The timing of the partnership deeds, the assessee&#039;s continuing control, financing of the ventures, routing of transactions through the head office, and branch-like arrangement of the businesses supplied material to infer that the two partnerships were constituted mainly to avoid or reduce excess profits tax. Both conclusions were upheld against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276932</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>