<?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>1984 (4) TMI 21 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27383</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the assessment of share income from the firm as an unregistered firm was not justified. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that no sub-partnership existed based on the agreement terms. The court found that the agreement did not establish a sub-partnership as it did not involve profit-sharing among the parties. The Revenue was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:04:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (4) TMI 21 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27383</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the assessment of share income from the firm as an unregistered firm was not justified. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that no sub-partnership existed based on the agreement terms. The court found that the agreement did not establish a sub-partnership as it did not involve profit-sharing among the parties. The Revenue was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>