<?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 (5) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290258</link>
    <description>For registration as a firm, the assessee had to show a real partnership and that the joint family character had ceased in the relevant legal sense. The surrounding materials, including the partnership deed, relinquishment deed, account entries, and later declarations of separation, were found insufficient to prove that joint family property had been partitioned in definite proportions or that the alleged partnership was actually acted upon. The conduct of the parties and the delay in asserting separation supported the view that the transaction was not genuine. The family was therefore treated as joint in law, the partnership was not accepted as real, and registration was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2020 17:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622367" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1936 (5) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290258</link>
      <description>For registration as a firm, the assessee had to show a real partnership and that the joint family character had ceased in the relevant legal sense. The surrounding materials, including the partnership deed, relinquishment deed, account entries, and later declarations of separation, were found insufficient to prove that joint family property had been partitioned in definite proportions or that the alleged partnership was actually acted upon. The conduct of the parties and the delay in asserting separation supported the view that the transaction was not genuine. The family was therefore treated as joint in law, the partnership was not accepted as real, and registration was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>