<?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 90 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18193</link>
    <description>Retirement of one partner and execution of a fresh partnership deed did not dissolve the firm where the business continued with the remaining and new partners; the arrangement amounted to reconstitution. On that basis, the accounting period was not split into two separate assessments. The text also notes that the Income-tax Act, as a special law, prevails over the general principles of the Partnership Act in this context.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:52:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18193</link>
      <description>Retirement of one partner and execution of a fresh partnership deed did not dissolve the firm where the business continued with the remaining and new partners; the arrangement amounted to reconstitution. On that basis, the accounting period was not split into two separate assessments. The text also notes that the Income-tax Act, as a special law, prevails over the general principles of the Partnership Act in this context.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>