<?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 (7) TMI 81 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16724</link>
    <description>A partnership formed by inducting additional partners without the mandatory prior approval of the licensing authority under the Andhra Pradesh liquor rules is an agreement prohibited by law and cannot support registration under the Income-tax Act. Mere intimation does not satisfy the statutory requirement, and a change in the constitution of the licensee firm without approval amounts to contravention of rules 38 and 39. In light of the Supreme Court principle in Bihari Lal Jaiswal, the Tribunal could not rely on the earlier High Court view to uphold validity of such a partnership, because a prohibited arrangement cannot be treated as a genuine firm for tax registration purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:45:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 81 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16724</link>
      <description>A partnership formed by inducting additional partners without the mandatory prior approval of the licensing authority under the Andhra Pradesh liquor rules is an agreement prohibited by law and cannot support registration under the Income-tax Act. Mere intimation does not satisfy the statutory requirement, and a change in the constitution of the licensee firm without approval amounts to contravention of rules 38 and 39. In light of the Supreme Court principle in Bihari Lal Jaiswal, the Tribunal could not rely on the earlier High Court view to uphold validity of such a partnership, because a prohibited arrangement cannot be treated as a genuine firm for tax registration purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>