<?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>1998 (4) TMI 56 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15335</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The partnership deed demonstrated the existence of six other partners besides those with dual capacity, ensuring the firm&#039;s registrability. The court affirmed that the inclusion of partners representing their Hindu undivided families did not render the firm ineligible for registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:25:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54335" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 56 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15335</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The partnership deed demonstrated the existence of six other partners besides those with dual capacity, ensuring the firm&#039;s registrability. The court affirmed that the inclusion of partners representing their Hindu undivided families did not render the firm ineligible for registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>