<?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>1988 (8) TMI 71 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24653</link>
    <description>A partnership engaged in liquor business that is formed in breach of licence conditions and excise rules is treated as illegal for income-tax purposes and cannot claim registration as a valid firm. Applying that principle, the adverse orders cancelling registration for earlier years and refusing registration for later years were upheld. The objection that Shankarlal or Kamlabai did not actually participate in the licensed business was also rejected because the finding that Shankarlal was not a sleeping partner was treated as a factual determination supported by the record. The Tribunal&#039;s view was sustained and the questions were answered against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 06 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:00:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 71 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24653</link>
      <description>A partnership engaged in liquor business that is formed in breach of licence conditions and excise rules is treated as illegal for income-tax purposes and cannot claim registration as a valid firm. Applying that principle, the adverse orders cancelling registration for earlier years and refusing registration for later years were upheld. The objection that Shankarlal or Kamlabai did not actually participate in the licensed business was also rejected because the finding that Shankarlal was not a sleeping partner was treated as a factual determination supported by the record. The Tribunal&#039;s view was sustained and the questions were answered against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>