<?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>1992 (8) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20266</link>
    <description>A partnership formed to operate buses using stage carriage permits standing in the name of a non-partner company was held to have an illegal object under the Motor Vehicles Act because the business depended on permits and vehicles being used without lawful transfer or permission. The Court distinguished cases where a partner himself held the permit and treated the present arrangement as fundamentally different, since the permit-holder was a stranger to the firm. As the partnership&#039;s substratum was unlawful from inception, the agreement was void ab initio and continuance of registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rightly refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:05:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20266</link>
      <description>A partnership formed to operate buses using stage carriage permits standing in the name of a non-partner company was held to have an illegal object under the Motor Vehicles Act because the business depended on permits and vehicles being used without lawful transfer or permission. The Court distinguished cases where a partner himself held the permit and treated the present arrangement as fundamentally different, since the permit-holder was a stranger to the firm. As the partnership&#039;s substratum was unlawful from inception, the agreement was void ab initio and continuance of registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rightly refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>