<?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>1995 (2) TMI 17 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18953</link>
    <description>Registration under the Income-tax Act depends on the firm having actually existed and carried on business during the accounting year in accordance with the operative partnership deed. Here, a later deed admitted two additional partners, their capital was introduced, and the firm functioned as a six-partner concern for the relevant period. The later attempt to cancel that deed and revive an earlier partnership could not retrospectively erase the legal effect of a deed that had already been acted upon. As the profits were not shown to have been allocated in accordance with the operative deed and the cancellation could not operate backward, the firm&#039;s genuineness and eligibility for registration were not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:44:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 17 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18953</link>
      <description>Registration under the Income-tax Act depends on the firm having actually existed and carried on business during the accounting year in accordance with the operative partnership deed. Here, a later deed admitted two additional partners, their capital was introduced, and the firm functioned as a six-partner concern for the relevant period. The later attempt to cancel that deed and revive an earlier partnership could not retrospectively erase the legal effect of a deed that had already been acted upon. As the profits were not shown to have been allocated in accordance with the operative deed and the cancellation could not operate backward, the firm&#039;s genuineness and eligibility for registration were not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>