<?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>1977 (3) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38544</link>
    <description>In a Hindu joint family business, absence of prior ascertainment or division of capital assets does not by itself negate a partial partition if the contemporaneous deed and surrounding conduct show an intention to sever joint status and transfer the business as a going concern. On those facts, the business can be treated as having passed out of the joint family into a valid partnership arrangement. The partnership&#039;s validity is not defeated merely because capital accounts were not formally worked out, provided the arrangement reflects real severance and formation of a partnership. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee, and registration under section 26A was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:38:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (3) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38544</link>
      <description>In a Hindu joint family business, absence of prior ascertainment or division of capital assets does not by itself negate a partial partition if the contemporaneous deed and surrounding conduct show an intention to sever joint status and transfer the business as a going concern. On those facts, the business can be treated as having passed out of the joint family into a valid partnership arrangement. The partnership&#039;s validity is not defeated merely because capital accounts were not formally worked out, provided the arrangement reflects real severance and formation of a partnership. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee, and registration under section 26A was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>