<?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>1996 (4) TMI 31 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17244</link>
    <description>Concurrent factual findings that a newly constituted partnership was genuine and that sufficient cause explained delay in seeking registration were upheld. The refusal to register rested on factual suspicion, but no perversity or legal error was shown. As the matter turned predominantly on facts and no substantial question of law arose, the reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, leaving the registration order undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:51:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 31 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17244</link>
      <description>Concurrent factual findings that a newly constituted partnership was genuine and that sufficient cause explained delay in seeking registration were upheld. The refusal to register rested on factual suspicion, but no perversity or legal error was shown. As the matter turned predominantly on facts and no substantial question of law arose, the reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, leaving the registration order undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>