<?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>1943 (11) TMI 14 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285726</link>
    <description>Section 25-A was held to apply only where joint family property is partitioned into definite portions; a partition of business assets could still be recognised even if other immovable family properties remained joint. On the facts, the business accounts had been separately maintained and the business branches divided, so the objection based on continued joint ownership of landed properties failed. Section 26-A was also satisfied because the partnership deed specified the partners&#039; shares and was not treated as colourable; the business was therefore recognised as a valid partnership and registration could not be refused on the ground that some family properties remained undivided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:15:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601282" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1943 (11) TMI 14 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285726</link>
      <description>Section 25-A was held to apply only where joint family property is partitioned into definite portions; a partition of business assets could still be recognised even if other immovable family properties remained joint. On the facts, the business accounts had been separately maintained and the business branches divided, so the objection based on continued joint ownership of landed properties failed. Section 26-A was also satisfied because the partnership deed specified the partners&#039; shares and was not treated as colourable; the business was therefore recognised as a valid partnership and registration could not be refused on the ground that some family properties remained undivided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 1943 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285726</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>