<?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>1944 (11) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289503</link>
    <description>A sum received by a reconstituted firm was assessable as part of the firm&#039;s income-tax profits under Section 26 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because the Tribunal treated the old undertaking&#039;s profits as profits of the firm for that assessment. However, for excess profits tax, the decisive question was whether the amount represented profits of the assessee-firm&#039;s own business during the accounting year. As the Tribunal found that the amount belonged to the old concern and was distributable to persons entitled under the prior arrangement, it was not the reconstituted firm&#039;s business profit and was not chargeable to excess profits tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 1944 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2020 14:47:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1944 (11) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289503</link>
      <description>A sum received by a reconstituted firm was assessable as part of the firm&#039;s income-tax profits under Section 26 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because the Tribunal treated the old undertaking&#039;s profits as profits of the firm for that assessment. However, for excess profits tax, the decisive question was whether the amount represented profits of the assessee-firm&#039;s own business during the accounting year. As the Tribunal found that the amount belonged to the old concern and was distributable to persons entitled under the prior arrangement, it was not the reconstituted firm&#039;s business profit and was not chargeable to excess profits tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 1944 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>