<?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>1957 (2) TMI 89 - LAHORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284118</link>
    <description>Registration of a firm under section 26A was properly refused because the partnership deed and application did not disclose the names and individual shares of the partners in the component firms. The rules under section 26A require strict compliance with the prescribed form and full disclosure of all partners&#039; names and shares to prevent registration of fictitious firms. The fact that a partnership between two firms may be treated as a partnership between their individual members for assessment purposes does not excuse non-compliance with these registration requirements. The refusal to register was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:01:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=592604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (2) TMI 89 - LAHORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284118</link>
      <description>Registration of a firm under section 26A was properly refused because the partnership deed and application did not disclose the names and individual shares of the partners in the component firms. The rules under section 26A require strict compliance with the prescribed form and full disclosure of all partners&#039; names and shares to prevent registration of fictitious firms. The fact that a partnership between two firms may be treated as a partnership between their individual members for assessment purposes does not excuse non-compliance with these registration requirements. The refusal to register was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>