<?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 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277033</link>
    <description>A family arrangement was treated as co-ownership and management, not a partnership, because it did not show an intention to constitute the parties as partners. The partnership deed was not invalid merely because one signatory, though described as a major, was in fact a minor; any invalidity as against the minor did not defeat the agreement between the adult members. On the facts, the adult members formed a valid partnership and the minor could be treated as admitted to the benefits of partnership for income-tax purposes. Subsequent release and ratification deeds were irrelevant because they were executed after the registration application. Registration under Section 26A was therefore allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:52:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=543260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (3) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277033</link>
      <description>A family arrangement was treated as co-ownership and management, not a partnership, because it did not show an intention to constitute the parties as partners. The partnership deed was not invalid merely because one signatory, though described as a major, was in fact a minor; any invalidity as against the minor did not defeat the agreement between the adult members. On the facts, the adult members formed a valid partnership and the minor could be treated as admitted to the benefits of partnership for income-tax purposes. Subsequent release and ratification deeds were irrelevant because they were executed after the registration application. Registration under Section 26A was therefore allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>