<?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>1923 (9) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277161</link>
    <description>An agreement admitting the wife as a partner was treated as a valid partnership and firm under the Indian Contract Act and the Indian Income Tax Act. The husband&#039;s reservation of management and special powers did not negate the partnership, because partners may lawfully agree that one partner controls the business. The instrument was construed as a real transaction capable of implying a combination of property, labour, or skill, and its terms were not inconsistent with a partnership relation. The arrangement was therefore assessable separately as an unregistered firm under the Super-tax Act, and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 1923 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2018 15:08:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1923 (9) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277161</link>
      <description>An agreement admitting the wife as a partner was treated as a valid partnership and firm under the Indian Contract Act and the Indian Income Tax Act. The husband&#039;s reservation of management and special powers did not negate the partnership, because partners may lawfully agree that one partner controls the business. The instrument was construed as a real transaction capable of implying a combination of property, labour, or skill, and its terms were not inconsistent with a partnership relation. The arrangement was therefore assessable separately as an unregistered firm under the Super-tax Act, and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 1923 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>