<?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 (1) TMI 31 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35603</link>
    <description>A Hindu joint family may sever its status by a definite and unequivocal intention to separate; immediate partition by metes and bounds is not required. On the facts, the partnership deed recorded the partition, and the books reflected division of stock-in-trade and cash with corresponding capital entries, while there was no material showing continued joint family ownership. These circumstances supported the finding that the family had disrupted before the firm came into existence and that the partnership was genuinely constituted. The assessee-firm was therefore entitled to registration, and the reference was answered in the affirmative against the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:43:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74149" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (1) TMI 31 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35603</link>
      <description>A Hindu joint family may sever its status by a definite and unequivocal intention to separate; immediate partition by metes and bounds is not required. On the facts, the partnership deed recorded the partition, and the books reflected division of stock-in-trade and cash with corresponding capital entries, while there was no material showing continued joint family ownership. These circumstances supported the finding that the family had disrupted before the firm came into existence and that the partnership was genuinely constituted. The assessee-firm was therefore entitled to registration, and the reference was answered in the affirmative against the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>