<?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>1981 (3) TMI 222 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29396</link>
    <description>A valid partnership exists where the deed shows an agreement to carry on business and share profits, with mutual agency remaining the essential element under the Partnership Act. Exclusive management by one partner, unequal profit division, or exclusion from a particular branch of activity does not by itself negate partnership if the arrangement still reflects common business conduct. On the deed examined, the partners maintained common management, common accounts, and agreed sharing of profits and losses; the absence of a share in the lorry business and lack of capital contribution by one partner were treated as internal arrangements. The partnership was therefore regarded as valid, and registration was available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:39:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (3) TMI 222 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29396</link>
      <description>A valid partnership exists where the deed shows an agreement to carry on business and share profits, with mutual agency remaining the essential element under the Partnership Act. Exclusive management by one partner, unequal profit division, or exclusion from a particular branch of activity does not by itself negate partnership if the arrangement still reflects common business conduct. On the deed examined, the partners maintained common management, common accounts, and agreed sharing of profits and losses; the absence of a share in the lorry business and lack of capital contribution by one partner were treated as internal arrangements. The partnership was therefore regarded as valid, and registration was available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>