<?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>1936 (12) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285722</link>
    <description>For succession under Section 26(2) the Court applies the continuing concern principle: succession requires an existing business carried on by a different person with continuity of contracts, assets or clientele; where prior individual contracts expired and a new partnership commenced similar labour supply contracts, there was no succession, and the firm did not succeed to the individuals&#039; businesses. On registration under Section 26 A(1) the Court applies the mandatory specification rule: the partnership instrument must itself state the individual shares of all persons who are partners; omission of those inter se shares justified refusal of registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:24:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1936 (12) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285722</link>
      <description>For succession under Section 26(2) the Court applies the continuing concern principle: succession requires an existing business carried on by a different person with continuity of contracts, assets or clientele; where prior individual contracts expired and a new partnership commenced similar labour supply contracts, there was no succession, and the firm did not succeed to the individuals&#039; businesses. On registration under Section 26 A(1) the Court applies the mandatory specification rule: the partnership instrument must itself state the individual shares of all persons who are partners; omission of those inter se shares justified refusal of registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>