https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27971 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, finding insufficient evidence to support the claim that Kailashchandra was the de facto proprietor of the partnership firm. Emphasizing the roles of the partners and the absence of indications in the power of attorney divesting their rights, the court highlighted the importance of examining partnership agreements and partner actions to determine genuineness. The decision aligned with legal provisions and precedents cited, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence before rejecting a partnership's genuineness. en-us Mon, 26 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:35:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27971 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, finding insufficient evidence to support the claim that Kailashchandra was the de facto proprietor of the partnership firm. Emphasizing the roles of the partners and the absence of indications in the power of attorney divesting their rights, the court highlighted the importance of examining partnership agreements and partner actions to determine genuineness. The decision aligned with legal provisions and precedents cited, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence before rejecting a partnership's genuineness. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27971