<?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>1966 (4) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288931</link>
    <description>Registration of a firm was not defective where the application substantially complied with the prescribed form: column 6 required entry of each partner&#039;s share in profits or loss, and Note 2 required only the letter &quot;P&quot; against a partner entitled to profits but not liable for losses. No further specification of the other partners&#039; loss shares was necessary, and the note that the minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership was sufficient. Part B of the schedule was held applicable only when the application was made after the close of the relevant previous year; as the application was filed before that date, its omission did not invalidate the form. The question was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2020 15:34:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=616787" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (4) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288931</link>
      <description>Registration of a firm was not defective where the application substantially complied with the prescribed form: column 6 required entry of each partner&#039;s share in profits or loss, and Note 2 required only the letter &quot;P&quot; against a partner entitled to profits but not liable for losses. No further specification of the other partners&#039; loss shares was necessary, and the note that the minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership was sufficient. Part B of the schedule was held applicable only when the application was made after the close of the relevant previous year; as the application was filed before that date, its omission did not invalidate the form. The question was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>