<?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>1987 (9) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25039</link>
    <description>An amount received pursuant to an arbitral award on a contract made by the original firm was treated as taxable in the hands of the reconstituted firm because the reconstitution left one continuing partner and the firm was regarded in substance as the same assessee entity under the continuing-firm rule. The taxability therefore followed the firm after reconstitution, and the amount was not assessed separately as belonging to a different entity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:32:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25039</link>
      <description>An amount received pursuant to an arbitral award on a contract made by the original firm was treated as taxable in the hands of the reconstituted firm because the reconstitution left one continuing partner and the firm was regarded in substance as the same assessee entity under the continuing-firm rule. The taxability therefore followed the firm after reconstitution, and the amount was not assessed separately as belonging to a different entity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>