<?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 (9) TMI 48 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17439</link>
    <description>A pre-existing firm seeking continued registration could not be refused registration merely because an excise licence stood in the names of individual partners and had not been endorsed in favour of the firm. The relevant income-tax question was whether a genuine firm existed for the assessment year, and that genuineness was not displaced where the firm was already constituted, had filed the required declaration for continuation, and there was no change in constitution or profit-sharing ratios. Any defect in the excise licence might affect the liquor business, but it did not by itself negate the firm&#039;s existence for income-tax purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:44:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 48 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17439</link>
      <description>A pre-existing firm seeking continued registration could not be refused registration merely because an excise licence stood in the names of individual partners and had not been endorsed in favour of the firm. The relevant income-tax question was whether a genuine firm existed for the assessment year, and that genuineness was not displaced where the firm was already constituted, had filed the required declaration for continuation, and there was no change in constitution or profit-sharing ratios. Any defect in the excise licence might affect the liquor business, but it did not by itself negate the firm&#039;s existence for income-tax purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>