<?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>1979 (11) TMI 31 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35946</link>
    <description>A payment made by a firm to an outgoing partner after dissolution was treated as deductible business expenditure to the extent upheld by the Tribunal, because the material supported a finding that the consolidated award covered settlement dues and compensation for use of partnership assets, not merely the price of acquiring a capital asset. The partnership had ended on expiry of the notice period, so the retiring partner was only entitled to settlement of accounts and amounts due on dissolution. Section 37 of the Indian Partnership Act was held inapplicable on the facts, and the outgoing partner could not be treated as continuing to share profits after dissolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:28:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (11) TMI 31 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35946</link>
      <description>A payment made by a firm to an outgoing partner after dissolution was treated as deductible business expenditure to the extent upheld by the Tribunal, because the material supported a finding that the consolidated award covered settlement dues and compensation for use of partnership assets, not merely the price of acquiring a capital asset. The partnership had ended on expiry of the notice period, so the retiring partner was only entitled to settlement of accounts and amounts due on dissolution. Section 37 of the Indian Partnership Act was held inapplicable on the facts, and the outgoing partner could not be treated as continuing to share profits after dissolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>