<?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>1980 (9) TMI 44 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35936</link>
    <description>Where a partnership deed already fixed capital contributions, profit shares and the position of minors on attaining majority, no fresh instrument was required for renewal of registration when the minors elected to become partners within the prescribed period. The court treated the transition from minor to full partner as creating no real change in the firm&#039;s constitution because the original deed, read with the Partnership Act, already covered the contingency including loss sharing after majority. The existing instrument therefore continued to evidence the firm&#039;s constitution and shares, and refusal to renew registration or to treat the firm as unregistered was unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:55:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (9) TMI 44 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35936</link>
      <description>Where a partnership deed already fixed capital contributions, profit shares and the position of minors on attaining majority, no fresh instrument was required for renewal of registration when the minors elected to become partners within the prescribed period. The court treated the transition from minor to full partner as creating no real change in the firm&#039;s constitution because the original deed, read with the Partnership Act, already covered the contingency including loss sharing after majority. The existing instrument therefore continued to evidence the firm&#039;s constitution and shares, and refusal to renew registration or to treat the firm as unregistered was unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35936</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>