<?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>1990 (12) TMI 24 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22353</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee. It determined that the income for the two periods should not be clubbed together but assessed separately due to the dissolution of the first firm and the constitution of a new firm after a partner&#039;s death. The judgment highlighted the legal principles governing firm reconstitution and the requirement for separate assessments in such instances, in line with established case law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:06:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 24 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22353</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee. It determined that the income for the two periods should not be clubbed together but assessed separately due to the dissolution of the first firm and the constitution of a new firm after a partner&#039;s death. The judgment highlighted the legal principles governing firm reconstitution and the requirement for separate assessments in such instances, in line with established case law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22353</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>