<?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>1973 (11) TMI 33 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39684</link>
    <description>A partnership deed is not invalid merely because the same individual signs in two distinct capacities, provided the arrangement still satisfies the legal requirements of a valid partnership, including plurality of partners. The court accepted the earlier Bombay view and distinguished the Privy Council decision relied on by the Revenue as factually different. On that basis, the firm remained validly registrable and the Commissioner was not justified in cancelling its registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:34:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78230" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (11) TMI 33 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39684</link>
      <description>A partnership deed is not invalid merely because the same individual signs in two distinct capacities, provided the arrangement still satisfies the legal requirements of a valid partnership, including plurality of partners. The court accepted the earlier Bombay view and distinguished the Privy Council decision relied on by the Revenue as factually different. On that basis, the firm remained validly registrable and the Commissioner was not justified in cancelling its registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>